So that new Ruger Security-9...

[arquebus357]

After all this perhaps the real bargain is the Ruger American. That is if you can get past the horrible weight and that trigger with the Glock dingus that can sink below the level of the trigger face and hurt your little trigger fingee.

I kind of like the American's steam punk looks, cast steel chassis, and genuine Novak's sights.

Oh...I forgot. The Novak's tapered design preclude your cocking the gun with one hand. So if you are wounded in a firefight and don't have use of both arms, you are screwed. Strange how this is never a concern with Novak's when put on 1911's

[johnwilliamson062]

The thing I find must interesting about this is it seems to be a lot like a Glock 19, but without all the features added in gen 4 and 5. If Glock had simply continued producing the simpler pistols it started with they might be close the the price point.
Maybe Glock should release a G19 Classic at a similar price point without all the features.

As another poster noted, I'm amazed almost NONE of their mags are compatible. Every other brand seems to understand people like that feature, but Ruger seems set on blowing off the consumer and keeping everything proprietary and model specific.

Magazine issues are what haunt many models. The way to design a pistol would seem to be to start with a proven magazine.

It is called the security and I am willing to bet it will be a big hit with armed guards who aren't gun people. I wouldn't mind having one, but not near the top of my long list, let alone on the short list.

[carguychris]

I handled at Security-9 at the LGS the other day.

The pistol feels cheap-ish, but I was expecting that, and I don't consider it to be a deal-killer. Same goes for the odd trigger; smooth and light, but without a well-defined break.

I was seriously off-put by the safety, which as I previously discussed, IMHO must be used for safe operation of this pistol. It's very small and it's not ambidextrous, which is obvious (albeit odd, given the new MkIV's blatantly oversize ambi safeties). However, my main complaint is that the lever was VERY hard to move into the SAFE position, as in hard enough that both myself and the counter guy were initially worried that it was stuck; I let HIM force it because I didn't want to be the guy who broke a brand-new gun.

This may be related to a peculiarity of the design; unlike most thumb safeties that slide without pivoting or pivot at the rear of the frame, the pivot point of the S-9 safety is well in FRONT of the lever. Consequently, the lever wants to move slightly forward as you push it upwards, the opposite direction that your thumb is moving. It took a slight shift in my grip to move the lever in the direction it wants to move. However, it was also pretty obvious that the detent on this particular pistol was MUCH too strong.

NOT impressed.

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

As another poster noted, I'm amazed almost NONE of their mags are compatible. Every other brand seems to understand people like that feature, but Ruger seems set on blowing off the consumer and keeping everything proprietary and model specific.

I'm not certain that the S-9 magazines are as model-specific as we think.

First, the Ruger webpage for the new PC Carbine says this, my emphasis in boldface:

Interchangeable magazine wells for use of common Ruger® and Glock® magazines. Ships with SR-Series Pistol and Security-9® magazine well installed and an additional magazine well accepting Glock® magazines is included*. Ruger American Pistol® magazine well is available at ShopRuger.com.

"Magazine well" is singular, implying that the SR9 and S-9 utilize the same adapter in the PC9.

Second, although the SR9 and S-9 magazines have different Ruger parts numbers, they look absolutely the same in stock photos.

I wonder if this is a situation similar to the S&W SW9VE and SD9 VE: identical magazine bodies and followers, but different plastic base plates to match the differing grip frame styling. Trim to fit, or simply ignore the non-matching appearance, and they're effectively interchangeable.

To know for sure, we may have to wait until someone here physically tries to use an SR9 magazine in an S-9 and vice versa.

[johnwilliamson062]

My understanding is there is an additional cut-out on one of the mags and they are not compatible, at least not both ways. The security may work in the others, but the others not in the security.

I'm not sure. Ruger isn't clear. Glock makes it simple.

[Mosin44az]

Tried one of these at the show Sunday. Grip feels good, much better than the awful clunky American.

Carguychris and others, does applying the safety make the new one drop safe? Would prevent hammer from dropping I presume.

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by Mosin44az

Tried one of these at the show Sunday. Grip feels good, much better than the awful clunky American.

I'll agree with you there. My main criticism of the American is the peculiar grip shape, which IMHO seems like it has pressure points in odd places, like the designer wasn't really familiar with human anatomy. The S-9 grip is not like that, although it's no ergonomic wonder.

I did think that the grip texture could be more aggressive, but perhaps Ruger is assuming that owners will add tape, sleeves, Talon Grip, etc. as it suits them. I actually think there's something to be said for this design approach.

All that being said, IMHO the S-9 falls short of the SR9 in the ergonomic and trigger quality department, as does the American.

Regarding my earlier comments: did the sample you handled have unusually stiff safety engagement?

Originally Posted by Mosin44az

Carguychris and others, does applying the safety make the new one drop safe? Would prevent hammer from dropping I presume.

Ruger claims that the pistol incorporates a hammer block. From the Ruger Security-9 webpage:

Safety features include... [a] hammer catch to help prevent the hammer from contacting the firing pin unless the trigger is pulled.

However, the issue I (and TunnelRat and others) have is that there is no positive trigger-actuated firing-pin block, so the firing pin is free to move at all times. Thus, the pistol could discharge if the muzzle or aft end of the frame strikes a hard surface with enough force for the firing pin's own inertia to cause it to move independently of the slide.

This is by no means unique—the M1911 and many other older pistols are like this—but it's unusual in a newer design.

Of course, firing-pin blocks themselves are never failsafe, but I would argue that a pistol with one is MORE drop-safe than a pistol without one.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by carguychris

However, the issue I (and TunnelRat and others) have is that there is no positive trigger-actuated firing-pin block, so the firing pin is free to move at all times. Thus, the pistol could discharge if the muzzle or aft end of the frame strikes a hard surface with enough force for the firing pin's own inertia to cause it to move independently of the slide.

This is by no means unique—the M1911 and many other older pistols are like this—but it's unusual in a newer design.

Of course, firing-pin blocks themselves are never failsafe, but I would argue that a pistol with one is MORE drop-safe than a pistol without one.

You could also argue that every pistol would be MORE drop-safe with a manual safety than a pistol without one. However, we know that many pistols have other safety mechanisms that make them adequately drop-safe without a manual safety.

Springfield Armory 1911s use a different approach to deal with an inertial firing pin in the absence of a firing pin safety. Has anyone actually tried to determine Ruger's design approach or are the complaints about the lack of a firing pin safety simply uninformed talk?

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by gc70

Springfield Armory 1911s use a different approach to deal with an inertial firing pin in the absence of a firing pin safety. Has anyone actually tried to determine Ruger's design approach or are the complaints about the lack of a firing pin safety simply uninformed talk?

You're presumably referring to a lightweight firing pin and a stronger firing pin spring.

I'm actually quite curious about Ruger's design approach here. I haven't been able to verify anything since the info on the pistol's webpage is pretty sketchy.

My main point is not necessarily that the S-9 is categorically unsafe, but rather that I'd like to know what sort of safety measures Ruger has taken in lieu of a firing-pin safety, particularly when the thumb safety is disengaged.

So yeah, it's arguably uninformed talk.

[gc70]

Originally Posted by carguychris

My main point is not necessarily that the S-9 is categorically unsafe, but rather that I'd like to know what sort of safety measures Ruger has taken in lieu of a firing-pin safety, particularly when the thumb safety is disengaged.

Me too, just said differently.

[DT Guy]

Personally, I think this requires someone doing a plastic mallet dance all over the Security 9, like they did with the Sig 320; all the rest is supposition. It could be (I don't know if it is or isn't) that Ruger's 'neutral sear' and hammer catch work perfectly, and the firing pin is either TI or otherwise engineered to be drop safe.

Larry

[wild cat mccane]

If it's the Kel Tec hammer design (which it is) people have already tested this design. At least on Kel Tec, it ain't drop safe. This is *probably* true of the Kel Tec hammer designed LCPII and is also *probably* true of the Security-9.

[Mosin44az]

Carguy Chris, I couldn’t test the thumb safety at the show.

There is an American Rifleman review online that covers the Security 9 and the new PC9 rifle.

They had no trouble with the thumb safety,though they said the slide lock was very stiff.

Oh, but they also say the Security 9 has a lightweight titanium firing pin with a strong firing pin spring, preventing firing without a hammer strike....

[Whirlwind06]

I bought one about 3 weeks ago. I have about 425 rounds though at this point. I guess I'm not the target market because I'm already over the ammo allotment someone has said the buyers would shoot though it. I have had 3 fail to extract using crap steel cased ammo. With actual SD ammo it as been great.

The FP spring seems very strong, but I don't have a way to actually measure it. Pushing a flat head screw driver against it (while disassembled) it takes a fair amount of pressure to push the FP out. Much more pressure then it would take to do the same with a KT P11 I had. I do agree that a actual FP block would have been a great additional safety feature. But I guess that it would have taken more engineering to get it there. IMO Ruger really should have used the LC9s design and made it a double stack.


The thumb safety locks both the trigger and the hammer, I would guess it's blocking the sear. The thumb safety does get easier to engage after a few 100 rounds.

[DT Guy]

Whirlwind, you wouldn't happen to own a plastic mallet, would you?


Larry

[carguychris]

Originally Posted by wild cat mccane

If it's the Kel Tec hammer design (which it is) people have already tested this design. At least on Kel Tec, it ain't drop safe. This is *probably* true of the Kel Tec hammer designed LCPII and is also *probably* true of the Security-9.

Do the Kel-Tecs have a hammer block like the Ruger?

Also, most of what I've seen online seems to indicate that the problem with the Kel-Tecs is a combination of a too-massive firing pin and an inadequately stiff firing-pin spring; IOW the drop-fire issue has to do with independent firing-pin movement and not the hammer dropping at an inappropriate time. What have you seen to indicate that the K-T hammer design has a problem?

[Whirlwind06]

Originally Posted by DT Guy

Whirlwind, you wouldn't happen to own a plastic mallet, would you?


Larry

Yeah I do. But no I won't!

Sent from my Pixel 2 using Tapatalk

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

My understanding is there is an additional cut-out on one of the mags and they are not compatible, at least not both ways. The security may work in the others, but the others not in the security.

I'm not sure. Ruger isn't clear. Glock makes it simple.

That's why I'm such a Glock fan. All their magazines work the same across all gens, so long as you're a right handed shooter, which most people are.

It's like, even the LCP II, while it can work with LCP mags, it doesn't have last round hold open. Why Ruger didn't put that feature in the original LCP makes no sense because it also had a slide stop, it's just that it never served any function during operation. What a great use of time and material putting a useless part.

And you're right, Ruger is the worst offender of this that I've seen. In 30 years they've had several different pistols and magazines and then they come out with new pistols that take new magazines... it's become absurd. I'm hesitant to buy into either the LC9s or EC9s because I get the feeling Ruger is going to come out with a new single stack 9mm that will have some really cool feature (a mini RMR that folds when carried, unfolds and turns on when drawn from a holster) but it will use different magazines!!!

In the box for all new owners of the Security 9, Ruger should offer a 1 time rebate to cut the notch in all the SR9 mags that owner has that he wants to use in the Security 9 and free of charge.

[johnwilliamson062]

Holsters work across all generations of Glock also, don't they?

Between mags and holsters I certainly have more than he cost of the pistol invested in accessories. Maybe I am in a minority on this subject, but it is a definite plus for Glock on my tally.

[DT Guy]

Originally Posted by johnwilliamson062

Holsters work across all generations of Glock also, don't they?

Between mags and holsters I certainly have more than he cost of the pistol invested in accessories. Maybe I am in a minority on this subject, but it is a definite plus for Glock on my tally.

No, the later railed Glocks won't typically fit in holster made for the earlier models.


Larry

[Nathan]

WARNING - HANDLING

Do not load the pistol until you are ready to use it, and unload it immediately when you have completed shooting. (See “Unloading Warning” on page 17.)

If dropped or struck, the pistol may fire. Keep chamber empty unless actually firing! For maximum safety when carrying the pistol with a loaded magazine in place, the chamber should be empty, and the slide should be closed. If placed into a holster, check it to be sure that the slide is not retracted far enough to chamber a cartridge from the magazine.
...
ANY GUN MAY FIRE IF DROPPED

Honestly, if you feel you have to write that in your manual, go ahead and cancel the product launch. Unloaded pistols are of no value to me.

I hat to say this because I really like Ruger.

[johnwilliamson062]

No, the later railed Glocks won't typically fit in holster made for the earlier models.

Gen III came out with a rail in 1998. I'm ok with that necessary change. I've only seen a few Gen II pistols in my life.

[William Munny]

I had the chance to handle and dry fire one of these pistols at my local gun store. I think the trigger is quite nice and if I didn't already have a Sig P320 Compact 9mm I would have bought the Ruger on the spot.

[wild cat mccane]

This thread hints at the Kel Tec drop tests and you don't have to go to the vile KTOG forum: https://www.thektog.org/threads/test...ropped.198932/ This thread is about all the the tests in general.

Remember, the drop testing for the P3AT/PF-9 hammer and the P-11 hammer was done over a decade ago. I believe a guy named (Don) Golden Loki did the test? This guy left American and his site went down 2012. Google's wayback machine has it....http://web.archive.org/web/201210030.../gel/tests.htm

I was wrong. It was 1bad6-. Just found the P-11 test that was the gold standard for the P-11 (different hammer than the P3AT--what the LCP copied). http://1bad69.com/keltec/droptestresults.htm Drop heights of 3ft, boom.

Some of us know our stuff about Kel Tec designs. Being so poor in the early years, customers had to do Kel Tec's work of bringing a functioning gun to market. I put my years taking about P3ATs, PF-9s, and P-11s. Trust me, unless we know more about the firing pin, Ruger's warning about not carrying loaded is accurate on the Kel Tec hammer-regardless if this message was in their other model manuals.

Also, the LCPII is most likely to be a real threat to safety when dropped. As you will read, the fact the trigger is so light and travel is so little, that's the problem. The Kel Tec hammer can't physically do that safely.

[DT Guy]

According to American Rifleman, the Security 9 has a TI firing pin and heavy pin spring; they directly address this in their review:

The trigger’s inner safety lever is another component that works to prevent unintentional discharges. It also acts as an inertial block. Lastly, a lightweight titanium firing pin is paired with a strong return spring. The lighter pin requires a blow from the hammer to move forward with enough force to fire a chambered cartridge. Dropping the gun on a hard surface does not provide enough directed energy to move the firing pin. The Security-9 does not have a magazine disconnect safety and will fire if the trigger is pressed while the magazine is removed.

So if this is the 'Kel-Tec' hammer, it's been updated significantly.

Larry

[brian33x51]

Even with the crummy trigger (I replaced mine) hickock45 still shot the taurus pt111 g2 mill pro better than this ruger. So while it might have the ruger name behind it I suspect its just another middle of the pack budget polymer.