Does anyone think the Ruger p series would have made a good choice for the Army?


PDA






Scott13
March 26, 2003, 09:33 PM
Personally i think it would of been a perfect gun for the military .
Not that theirs anything wrong with the Beretta 92 . But the Rugers just seem super durable , and reliable as well . Just was wondering what other people think about them ?

If you enjoyed reading about "Does anyone think the Ruger p series would have made a good choice for the Army?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
MiniZ
March 26, 2003, 09:48 PM
Ruger had an entry in the trials that were eventually "won" by Beretta. They didn't cut the mustard.

flinch
March 26, 2003, 09:56 PM
I wouldnt hesitate to carry a P94 or P95 into combat. Never messed with the P89. Tough, dependable accurate etc etc and AMERICAN made.

Mylhouse
March 26, 2003, 10:09 PM
I've owned the P94 and the KP95, both in 9mm. They weren't precise enough for my tastes, but I can't fault them. The KP95 in particular had an excellent DA pull. Both of them were stone cold reliable, even eating Wolf like it was going out of style (before I saw the light and started reloading).

Both of them rattled like a Copperhead, but then again, so did GI 1911s. If the GI 45s served well, I don't see why the P series guns couldn't. I'd trust my life to one.

Blueduck
March 26, 2003, 10:35 PM
Nope.

Landing rights in Southport, CT were not vital to us at that time ;)

.45Ruger
March 26, 2003, 10:38 PM
The Rugers, are just as reliable, cheaper and American made. Imagine if the Army had chosen HK, now the Germans don't like what we are doing in Iraq so they could simply say, no more guns, or replacement parts ofr the ones you already have. If American weapons had been purchased this scary scenario would not be possible.

Handy
March 26, 2003, 10:44 PM
If the US purchased HK, there would have been an HK plant in the US to go with it - that's the deal. That's the way it is for HK in many other countries, that's the way it is with Beretta, SIG and FN in the US.


The Ruger didn't make it on to the scene until the last trial. This was the not-quite-perfect early version of the not-quite-perfect P85. If a P89 was on scene, maybe it would have done very well, who knows.

It LOOKS like it should be our military pistol.

Rally Vincent
March 26, 2003, 10:45 PM
If the world was perfect, our Amry would be use'n Glock 17's.

Handy
March 26, 2003, 10:49 PM
If we were issued Glocks, we'd be back to carrying cond. 3.

Perfect?

Rally Vincent
March 26, 2003, 10:53 PM
Something wrong with condition 3?

Detritus
March 26, 2003, 11:01 PM
Landing rights in Southport, CT were not vital to us at that time

the one adn ONLY reason Barretta was allowed to compete.... the barretta "won" b/c we wanted basing adn anchorage privleges in Italy. i won't go into it b/c unfortunately the sources i base my personal oppinions and conclusions on with regard to the M-9, are no longer close at hand for me. but i will say this... there are some that look at the "trials" and see not a competition, but a foregone conclusion with the "forms being followed" to make it LOOK legit.


as for Ruger being a good choice for GI issue. i think that if Ruger had gotten into the competition on time, AND political consideration had not been placed above actual function. that a Ruger would have replaced the 1911A1.

Handy
March 26, 2003, 11:07 PM
Something wrong with condition 3?

Yes. It's slower, takes two hands and will jam a gun if done incorrectly. Not exactly a bonus for a man holding a rifle with the other hand.

Find me a police agency that carries cond. 3 and we'll talk.

Rally Vincent
March 26, 2003, 11:16 PM
Well the use of a pistol is a little different for a soldier than it is for a civvie you know.

For people like us.....Our pistol is our primary.

But for a soldier......it's secondary.

Chances are he's gonna have both hands free when he goes for it anyways. But that's not to say that Condition 3 is great. It IS slow as hell. But for a soldier it's just not an issue really.

SF is different.

Handy
March 26, 2003, 11:21 PM
I am in the Navy. All the Marines I've met on guard duty in the Persian Gulf had the chamber loaded for rapid response, just like a cop. This was a stated goal of the XM9 trials.

What should SF do, anyway? Get a completely different gun than everyone else? What's the advantage in that?

If a soldier goes for a pistol, things are already bad, they don't need to complicate the process. I don't understand what would be advantageous about issuing a gun that is LESS capable.

Watch the last 10 minutes of "Full Metal Jacket" and tell me you'd prefer to carry like that.

Rally Vincent
March 26, 2003, 11:27 PM
Hey I just said that I though the Glock17 would be a good pistol for the Army. O_O;; Thats all. lol.

Givin the fact that if you train enough and practice, you can turn the "task" of racking the slide of a pistol into a reflex......It can be done very fast.

But yeah........A round in the chamber beats an empty chamber.

But I still thin k the Glock17 should be our issue pistol.

Our M9's were a pain in the ***.

firestar
March 27, 2003, 12:21 AM
I have owned a Ruger P89 and a P95 and also a Beretta 92FS. There is no question which one I would rather have if I had to defend my life with a pistol, Beretta 92! It is more accurate and easier to shoot well. The P-95 is the best Ruger auto but it is still not in the same class as a Beretta.

I think the Beretta is the most reliable service type semi auto out there. The M9s are bound to be treated badly so I can't speak to them. My friend was a Marine armorer during the change over and after. He said all the guys wanted the M9s and couldn't wait to get one. The 1911s were getting pretty beat up and he said they were not at all reliable. He should know, he had to fix them all the time. He did say that the M9s were more accurate but they had their share of problems too.

Bottom line is, I think the Beretta 92 is one of the very best 9mm service pistols I have ever shot and while not perfect, it is a lot more reliable and packs much more fire power than the G.I. 1911. It is probably more accurate out of the box also. Take that!

BevrFevr
March 27, 2003, 01:12 PM
The weakest link in both the Ruger and the berreta 92 is the slide mounted safety/decocker.

Nobody should have to reach that high with their thumb to access a control on a handgun. IMHO.

Another thing I didn't like about earlier Rugers Is that you have to stick your finger down into the breech for take down. I don't know if that is still true on the newer models? Not a critical issue but It just seems alien to me.

-bevr

444
March 27, 2003, 01:18 PM
I think it would have been as good a choice as anything else out there. I certainly wouldn't bat an eye at carrying one.

Jesse H
March 27, 2003, 01:30 PM
Another thing I didn't like about earlier Rugers Is that you have to stick your finger down into the breech for take down. I don't know if that is still true on the newer models? Not a critical issue but It just seems alien to me.

Yeah I never like doing that on the P97. Have this fear that I'll accidentally bump the slide stop and get my finger bitten off.

Croyance
March 27, 2003, 02:15 PM
Politics aside, there are a lot of fine handguns that would make decent military service pistols.
Imagine if the Army had chosen HK, now the Germans don't like what we are doing in Iraq so they could simply say, no more guns, or replacement parts ofr the ones you already have. If American weapons had been purchased this scary scenario would not be possible. Buisnesses understand money. Politics is merely a marketing/public relations detail.
Also, Beretta has a factory in Maryland as part of the contract, why would it have been different for H&K? Upper management can tell workers what to do, but they cannot actually control them. Besides, a manufacturing plant can always be permenantly or temporarily nationalized.

Pilot
March 27, 2003, 02:17 PM
Some aircrews did carry Ruger P-89's during the first Gulf War. I'm not sure if they are still issued or not. I believe the Sig 228 is the preferred and current aircrew sidearm.

Sean Smith
March 27, 2003, 03:06 PM
No.

I don't care for the M9 at all; 3/4 of the ones I was issued were unreliable. On the pistol range. After being properly cleaned and lubed. With ball ammo. :eek:

That aside (which, in all fairness, is probably a fluke failure rate), the M9 has some bad points as a service weapon: fat grips and long trigger reach aren't good features for your typical female soldier, for instance (being smaller on average)... or anybody with smaller hands. The Ruger P-series guns basically have the same failings in this regard as the Beretta 9x series.

Given that a standard-issue military sidearm is going to be used mainly by people poorly trained in handgun use, and mostly with no pre-service firearm experience at all, a 9x19mm DA gun w/ a decocker probably IS the best choice. Single action weapons carried C&L probably ARE the best option for well-trained people who want as much first-shot accuracy with speed as they can get. But trust me, handgun training is a lower priority in the military than just about everything. Ideally, you'd make all your PFCs be IDPA hobbyists, but it ain't gonna happen.

You don't have to worry about SF, because they will use whatever they want, and what they use doesn't matter so much as long as it doesn't break.

What I personally think would be a great choice as a general service weapon, but is definitely in the "ain't gonna happen" category, is the CZ-75BD.

Gunner45
March 27, 2003, 04:08 PM
Let me say first off that over all I am a fan of Ruger firearms.
The first gun I bought was a Ruger MKII with a bull barel. I still own it and have long ago lost track of how many hundreds of rounds I have put through it. I have a Ruger Redhawk .44mag, and a Ruger M77 in .308 that go deer hunting with me. Both have been rock solid performers.

My brother got a Ruger P97 a few years ago. He liked my Colt 1911, but didn't think he could aford a 1911. His ruger is acurate, but to me it seems top heavy and chunky. It all so has a very nasty habbit. At least once per box of ammo he will get either a light strike on the primer or the hammer will drop and there is no mark on the primer at all. I have stripped the gun down, cleaned out the firing pin channel and still click no bang. :mad:

As much as I like Ruger guns, Ruger center fire pistols would not be on my list of choices for a millitary side arm.

Gunner45

Detritus
March 27, 2003, 05:14 PM
Have this fear that I'll accidentally bump the slide stop and get my finger bitten off.

having used a P95 for an extended time (only centerfire Auto my father owned between my graduation HS and when i left home) i will realte what i always did. i was always in the habit of after i'd locked the slide back and before i stuck a other thumb in the breach, moving my grip on the gun so that the thumb of the hand gripping the gun was used to hold the slide stop "up" for the split second it took to flip the ejector down. if one was truly leery of having a digit in there a cleaing rod, dowel, or other long thin object will work just as well.

Handy
March 27, 2003, 05:21 PM
You guys are kind of missing the benefit of the push down ejector. Because of it, you have better protection from ruptured shell casing gas blowing back through the ejector cut out other guns have in the slide.

It's also a good procedure because it forces you to look in the breech. And it can't be screwed up on reassembly.

If the disassembly procedure gives you the woolies, never shoot a Garand. Use a pencil or something.

zahc
March 27, 2003, 06:43 PM
On condition 3 carry (empty chamber, correct?):

I thought glocks were the safest for chambered carry b/c of thier DAO design. So why would they force cond. 3 carry:confused: Glocks and XDs and similar type pistols seem a good choice for thier ease of use.

I would NOT want to carry cond3 on a battlefield no matter how trained I was. If I have an M4 I'm not going to reaching for my sidearm unless the SRHTF, and so I can't assume I'd be able to ready my pistol like at the range, with both appendages free and uninjured (uh, wait up there, republican guardian, I have to chamber a round---ok!) :uhoh:

Riphalman
March 27, 2003, 06:43 PM
To me, the P series pistols LOOK like service pistols. My P97 has never malfunctioned. I said....NEVER MALFUNCTIONED! I believe it would make a near perfect choice for the military. I've fed this pistol quite a variety of factory ammo as well as my favorite handloads. Not even a burp.

Tony Z
March 27, 2003, 06:59 PM
I'd be perfectly happy with my P95 or P90, Just as reliable as my beretta 92 FS.

Tony

Handy
March 27, 2003, 07:08 PM
Zahc,

There are plenty of pistols that have all the internal and drop safeties that a Glock has (M9 and M11 are two), plus a trigger that resists accidental actuation.

The fact that the Glock is a "kinda" DAO would not wash with the US military. They would look at the very light trigger pull and mandate the same carry as the 1911.

zahc
March 27, 2003, 07:16 PM
Ok, I'm just ignorant:o I just don't know how all these things work. All i've shot pistol wise are DA/SA full sizers. I thought Glock was 'all' DAO and would pull like my USP does on DA. But I guess it is 'kinda' dao-partially cocked? Or actually is cocked and works much like my 10/22 without a safety:eek: *thinks how else the pull could be light*:confused:

megatronrules
March 27, 2003, 07:54 PM
They should have kept the 1911. If your down to a pistol in combat, the general opinion is you're screwed. You might as well throw the biggest slug you can at that point. They could have bought new 1911's just as easy and cheaper I would think.
I love the Beretta 92 so this isnt a slam on it. JMO is all.

Handy
March 27, 2003, 08:28 PM
Zahc,

The Glock, and several other similar systems (like the USP LEM) use two springs in the trigger system to lower the pull. In the case of the Glock, on spring helps you pull the trigger. In others, one spring is precompressed, the other isn't.

The result is the same-a trigger pull that is less than the total mainspring pressure.

faustulus
March 28, 2003, 01:38 AM
The Rugers, are just as reliable, cheaper and American made

the end of that sentence should read "by a firearms company with a shakier commentment to Second Amendment rights than Smith and Wesson."
I have shot several Rugers and while I think they make fine revovlers I don't really care for their autos. That being said I wouldn't buy a hat from them. Bill Ruger did not support the Second Amendment and neither does his company. He supported the "assault" weapons ban and the high capacity ban. His company has even said that if the brady bill sunsets they will not resume making hicap mags. I cannot understand why S&W feels the fury of gun owners but no Ruger :fire:

zahc
March 28, 2003, 08:42 AM
:what: I didn't kow that. Does this man speak the truth? If so, where shall I cast my dollar votes from now on? Who is on our side? :uhoh:

BevrFevr
March 28, 2003, 10:47 AM
zahc

Yes, he is correct.

-bevr

BevrFevr
March 28, 2003, 10:52 AM
Oh and on casting dollar votes? I'm not sure anyone has our back anymore.

I suggest buying Com block, At least you know ahead of time that they were our enemies. It's hard to be sold out when you know that going in.

-bevr

aerod1
March 28, 2003, 02:30 PM
I really wish the military and police would go to the Ruger "P" series. Reliable, accurate durable and American made.
Jim Hall

Rob96
March 28, 2003, 05:14 PM
If while I was in, I had the choice between the Beretta and the P-90. I would have chose the P-90. I just shoot it better.

hksw
March 28, 2003, 07:06 PM
"Another thing I didn't like about earlier Rugers Is that you have to stick your finger down into the breech for take down."

That and the swivel link lock-up are the reasons why I never got a centerfire Ruger semi.

Blueduck
March 28, 2003, 08:08 PM
'Course it might also come down to:

Do you think it would make any significant difference in any major millitary confrontation if the the U.S. Service pistol were a HK Mk-23 or Raven 25 auto?...

If were honest with ourselves I think we all know what the the answer is:uhoh:

Handy
March 29, 2003, 12:11 AM
Do you think it would make any significant difference in any major millitary confrontation if the the U.S. Service pistol were a HK Mk-23 or Raven 25 auto?...

After a few years of use? Yes, I think we all know the answer.


I'm not sure where all the armchair commandos get the notion that a handgun is still a badge of rank in the military. It is an emergency weapon, and has to be up to use in emergency conditions. Talk to downed Vietnam pilots and ask if they would care for a Raven. Or the Marine guarding my barracks in the Middle East.

Blueduck
March 29, 2003, 01:32 AM
C'mon Handy ;)

I love handguns as much as anybody and consider them the most important weapon a civillian can own but I asked about a significant difference in major conflict. Not one single war in the last 150 years has been won or lost due to handguns (though a big one was started with one). When you compare all the equipment an army needs for a quick decisive victory a good handgun would rank 115 notches lower than good boot laces. Anybody really think we would have lost WWII if not for the 1911? (maybe we had problems in Vietnam and Korea because they were worn out by then??) Anybody really think Desert Storm was won with the M-9? or Somalia would have been casulty free if our medics and MP's had only been packing G-21's instead of those darn M-9's?

As far as the other stuff, Only Vietnam pilot I knew was issued a high tech (sic) 38 revolver. The barracks issue you stated is my point exactly. If a Marine guarding your barracks in the Middle East just has a handgun then you got SERIOUS commander and risk assesment issues, what you don't have is a "handgun choice" issue.

Frankly if I was in charge of 70 milllion bucks right now to buy handguns for the armed forces I would not load up on Glocks, HK's or Rugers. I'd tell'em to take it back and spend it on trying to figure why our helicopters keep falling out of the sky as that would save more lives in the long run.

I haven't sat on an armchair (or commando for that matter) in years, my bottom prefering a Tactical Recliner with carbon fiber foot stool release :neener: it's just history and common sense.

444
March 29, 2003, 02:41 AM
I think this is getting a little carried away.
Does the military NEED handguns ? Yes.
Have handguns saved the life of American Military personel ? Yes
Have handguns been used by American Military personel in an offensive role ? Yes (many examples but tunnel rats come to mind).
Have US Military Personel won this country's highest military honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor while using a handgun ? Yes
Does our military need to be equiped with the finest, most reliable handgun possible ? Yes

Does any of this mean that wars are won or lost solely through the use of a handgun ? No
Is this even a logical question ? No

In modern warfare, it would be very hard to say that the war was won or lost strictly by the use of one single piece of equipment. Success on the battlefield is a product of many things from intelligence, weapons, morale, food, water, training.......................

faustulus
March 29, 2003, 04:00 AM
Have US Military Personel won this country's highest military honor, the Congressional Medal of Honor while using a handgun ? Yes

It is just "The Medal of Honor"

Gerald McDonald
March 29, 2003, 08:57 AM
My brother inlaw was an Ontos driver in Vietnam for the Marine corp. He was issued a 1911 and no long arm. He traded cigs to a South Viet officer for a grease gun. He said the grease gun would fire about 3 rounds and jam and the 1911 became his steady companion. Traded the grease gun for a Thompson which he said always shot but was heavy and not too much more accurate than his 1911. Finally traded for an M2 carbine and a bunch of hi cap (jungle mags were what he calls them) mags. He said when you were a tanker most of the time you didnt get a long arm. So yeah I would imagine a pistol can be important to your well being.
Gerald

Handy
March 29, 2003, 11:23 AM
Blueduck,

As others have pointed out so well, it's not the war, its the individual. If you don't give a crap about the individual, we can get rid of rescue teams and ejection seats too. War is not won by preserving an individual life here and there, but we think its kind of nice anyway.

The barracks guards had rifles, but because they came in close contact with people coming through the fence, the handgun offered a more immediate response.

Blueduck
March 29, 2003, 01:18 PM
I see where you folks are coming from now on an individual basis, but we only have a certain amount of money for the millitary. Wanna spend it on something maybe not so close to our hearts that brings LOTS OF INDIVIDUALS home safe? or spend it on ordering 2 million new pistols that *might* be of some slight advantage to A FEW INDIVIDUALS in unusual circumstances?

People worrying so much about millitary pistols which honestly both save and take a microscopic percentage of lives in warefare seems off kilter to me. Several truly great men used 1911's to bring home the Medal of Honor, great, but those men did it because they were great men, not because they carried a 1911 versus a P-38 or a M-9 versus a Ruger. If Audie Murphy didn't give up at the unfairness of being outnumbered 20 to 1, I doubt he'd sweat the difference between a Beretta and a Ruger.

When the Beretta's have reached the end of there service life a new contract will be granted to the cheapest bidder that meets the requirments set forth. Thats just the way it works in the real world, and likely then as now the difference between the top 2 or three condidates will mainly be trivial.

Handy
March 29, 2003, 02:48 PM
That really misses the point.

The US issues pistols for the same reason it issues body armor and emergency radios. We actually care about each soldier and try to increase individual survivability.

As this is a pistol forum, it's unsurprising that discussion arises about the selection process and criteria that the US uses for service pistols, especially since the XM9 trials were so extensive.

If you think its a stupid topic, you would have a better audience for that opinion on a non-handgun forum. There, the suggestion that all pistols in military use are worthless and the money would be better spent on MREs may find a following.

There is also a "shooting at 100 yards" topic over on the General Handgun board. You could go tell them that they would be better off with a rifle, but that would also completely miss the point.

Blueduck
March 29, 2003, 03:16 PM
Now Handy, I never said it was "a stupid topic". If I thought it was stupid I likely would not have logged in to look at it.

The discussion turned as it normally does to choosing a new sidearm. I expressed my opinion of why I thought changing the standard issue sidearm of all the armed forces might not be the best priority at the moment... seems on topic to me.

Now I get called an armchair commando (which I take in good spirit) and then offered an invitation to join an MRE forum:scrutiny: I may have offended you somehow with my thoughts (if so it was unintended) or maybe you just need less caffeine in your diet or starch in your shorts.

Regardless it's clear this is not getting us anywhere, please e-mail off line or pick a local playground to meet at for further discourse on the topic:rolleyes:

Handy
March 29, 2003, 05:44 PM
From what I can tell, no one in this thread suggested SWITCHING to the Ruger. No one seemed to be "worried" either.

Your suggestion that a Raven is sufficient for a US service pistol put your comments well outside that of a gun discussion, and my MRE comment was along the same lines. Everyone was talking about service pistols, you want to talk about how to spend a military budget. That's fine, but has nothing to do with the topic since the topic was not "should the military replace the M9 with Rugers soon". That was your idea.

There was nothing personal about this, but the Raven comment was really akin to calling the topic at hand, and all subsequent discussion, stupid and pointless. If that was not your intent, that is unfortunate.

Blueduck
March 29, 2003, 07:17 PM
Now Handy

I didn't say the Raven was sufficient I said: "Do you think it would make any significant difference in any major military confrontation if the U.S. Service pistol were a HK Mk-23 or Raven 25 auto?..."- Nope WWII, Korea, Vietnam were not won or lost by pistol choice in any significant way.

I also said: "Regardless it's clear this is not getting us anywhere, please e-mail off line or pick a local playground to meet at for further discourse on the topic"

Less time on pistols, more time on reading comprehension :rolleyes:

Tacblack
March 30, 2003, 06:03 AM
The comment Faustulus made about Bill Ruger is true to my knowledge also. The more I look around the more I find Ruger pushes the way they want things to be on everyone else. I stopped buying any Ruger guns do to the last Mr. Rugers deslike for motorcycles and taking it upon his self to cancel insuring on any employees that had them. Than making parking for motorcycles only that just happen to be a football field farther then the farthest car had to park. The insurance was put back on all employee's after one of those little discrimination law suites started. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

Adventurer_96
March 31, 2003, 03:14 AM
I believe the Sig 228 is the preferred and current aircrew sidearm.

Not in the USAF. It's the M9.

Regarding the M9, I'd trust my life to that pistol any day. I've only shot a Ruger once or twice, but I don't have enough experience with them to have a good opinion about the benefits of one over the other. I do know that when I toured their New England plant the marketing woman who took us on a tour mentioned that she'd love to see another pistol selection for the military so Ruger could compete.

seeker_two
March 31, 2003, 10:48 AM
The pistol Ruger put up for the trials (P85 Mk I) had a lot of problems. After all, it was the first Ruger centerfire auto ever made, & they hadn't worked out all the bugs yet. The Beretta & the SIG were the best of the choices available at that time...

Now, I'd think Rugers latest offerings (P93, P94, P95) would be great for military use---esp. the P94. I'd also think that the DAO models would be good choices d/t ease of training & use (as would Beretta's D-series pistols.) I'd be a little leery of the Glocks or XD-9's unless they had NY triggers.

But that's just me. YYMV...

If you enjoyed reading about "Does anyone think the Ruger p series would have made a good choice for the Army?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!