Ayoob Reviews the Ruger SR9 ...


PDA






P. Plainsman
February 24, 2008, 03:25 AM
... in the cover article of the new issue of Guns. And it ain't pretty!

Say what you will about Mas, he's one of the few big gunslick writers who is willing to talk dirt in frank terms about a major company's new gun if it doesn't meet expectations. That's what happens here.

He did like several things about the SR9: its short trigger reach, ambidextrous design, low bore axis, clever reversible grip frame insert.

The Problems: 1. mag release button would "stick badly" in the release position, preventing the fresh mag from seating properly. This (due to the lawyer-loving mag disconnector safety) would render the gun totally nonfunctional.

2. Next, the trigger "sucked," with heavy creep and drag through the whole pull. "An integral trigger stop would really improve the SR9's shooting characteristics."

3. Like virtually every other SR9 reviewer (and me, when I briefly test-fired one), Mas found the manual safety to be poorly placed; it's really small and you can't easily manipulate it with the firing-hand thumb.

4. Finally, the SR9's accuracy was poor, with most loads not even managing to get "inside the generous accuracy standard of 4 inches (at 25 yards) for service pistols." A few did better. But even of the 'good' loads, only one grouped under 3" at 25 yds. This was, no surprise, Black Hills's XTP-tipped 124 gr JHP+P load -- an excellent, accurate favorite of mine. 2.70" at 25. (Personally, I didn't find the SR9's accuracy problematic when I tried it -- not a match for my CZs, but OK -- but I only fired it offhand to about 15 yards.)

Even with the (relatively) more accurate loads, Mas reported "occasional 5-inch groups with unexplained called flyers," even when the pistol was shot by "match-winning shooters on my test team."

That's a seriously negative review, and it's doubly notable to read it in one of the major gun mags.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ayoob Reviews the Ruger SR9 ..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
NWdude83
February 24, 2008, 03:59 AM
I heard the mags were terrible to load.

P. Plainsman
February 24, 2008, 04:16 AM
The one I used was very hard to load.

nolyaw
February 24, 2008, 11:28 AM
Well, I have the magazine, and read it completely, then went out and purchased the SR 9. I wanted aanother cheap knock around 9mm, something different than my Sigs, and 'boring old Glocks'. Its new and I love the way it felt in my hand. I paid $385. In the first 100 rounds of Rem. UMC, I had no problems. My 9 year old however, had one stovepipe, and 2 failures to return to complete battery. Just a tap on the back fixed that. Ifound it reasonably accurate, it shot as good as I did. The strange part is the the mag release worked perfect all day. Then the next day I cleaned it, put it back together, and the the mag release just sticks in. I have to push it to get it back to center again. I pulled it out and found no dirt of any kind on it. I cleaned the entire area, oilde it, and put it back in. Same problem. It sucks. The mag disconnect is on the slide, not the frame, so I don't see by removing it that it would fix anything. There are only 4 parts to the set up. The plastic button, the pin that holds it in, the metal catch, and the spring attached to it. Its very simple, It acts the same way if the slide is on the gun or off. I do know that the first 15,000 of these guns had the 'earlier' mag dissconnect and magazines. Mine is 11,368, made on 11/29/07. From 12/19/07 they are different. What sucks is that is was perfect one day, then crappy the next. Ireally do hate plastic guns. But for the money, newness, feel, and cheapness to shoot, I like this sr9. I just hop I can work this problem out with Ruger. They want like $9 for the 'updated' mag release, and will only sell me the part, from my understanding. I will call them on 2/24 and see what they are willing to do. Should be interesting.By the way, I had only minor problems with the magazine loading. once you get it figured out, its not that bad.

civileng
February 24, 2008, 11:35 AM
When I shot it, I wasn't as impressed as I wanted to be. Dry firing the trigger felt fine, but when I was actually shooting I wasn't getting consistent hits. The safety location bothered me to.

Chipperman
February 24, 2008, 11:38 AM
"No honest man needs a mag that seats properly."

Jim Watson
February 24, 2008, 12:05 PM
One of our guys has an SR9 that is functionally reliable and he thinks the world of it "This gun will be buried with me." I think the trigger is just awful and would not tolerate a magazine disconnector, especially one that works like Ruger's.

Obviously M. Ayoob got an example of the marvels of mass production and statistical process control, commonly termed a lemon. The line "Mas reported "occasional 5-inch groups with unexplained called flyers,"" does not make sense to me. If it is a called flyer, then it is not unexplained. Uncalled flyers not known to the shooter until he looks at the target, and due to inaccuracy of gun or ammunition are the problem.

SAWBONES
February 24, 2008, 01:23 PM
"No honest man needs a mag that seats properly."


Har!
Bill Ruger Sr. certainly was a curmudgeon, as expressed by his comments regarding ten round magazine limitations for civilians and his dislike of small, concealable pistols, but he was also a great designer of firearms.

Storm
February 24, 2008, 01:46 PM
They want like $9 for the 'updated' mag release, and will only sell me the part, from my understanding.

Heck, that's like Ford having a major recall, charging you for the replacement part, and then forcing you install it.

TimboKhan
February 24, 2008, 02:29 PM
I heard the mags were terrible to load.

Thats a necessity of the design, and the gun comes with a mag loader. Shoving 17 rounds into a magazine that thin isn't going to be easy, regardless of who makes it. I would think that it would be worth it to have that many rounds in a gun that thin, though.

Also, I have to say that the 9 dollars for the mag release doesn't seem particularly unfair. Why should it be free? I could see it if every mag release was giving problems, but thats just not the case. I guess I can understand the principle of not wanting to spend 9 bucks on a new gun, but in the big picture it seems like a goofy thing to get worked up about. Also, I think it's great they will send it to you to put in yourself. I would be more upset if I had to send my gun off for something I could clearly do myself!

wally
February 24, 2008, 02:50 PM
Sounds to me like a defective mag catch that doesn't lock the mags in is a warranty issue. Haven't lots of folks here bragged about how good Ruger customer support is? I've only bought parts from them (to be used in an AMT Lightning, no less!), service was good but my only Ruger pistols are 22s so I've no experience about how they handle defective product. Failing to replace mag catches that don't work would be very poor support!

--wally.

mljdeckard
February 24, 2008, 03:05 PM
It should be free if it doesn't work.

I would send it back, Ruger has been fantastic about servicing their guns for me.

BUT, I only use rimfire auto pistols from Ruger. Why, because all the centerfire autos I have tried have (are you ready for this,) A CREEPY TRIGGER!!

NWdude83
February 24, 2008, 03:12 PM
Maybe he did just get a lemon, who knows. Unless he tries another one.

nolyaw
February 24, 2008, 06:41 PM
Well, I went to the range today and fired another 300 rounds of Rem UMC ammo thru the sr9. The mag release seems to be working more consistently now, but it still sticks occasionally. It definitely does not feelgood on any level. The real problem I am having is the slide will not go into full battery 100% of the time. A round will be fired, but it won't close all the way. Just a TINY bit, but the gun wont' fire, for obvious reasons. A tap on the back of it does the trick, but that sucks. Definitely not a reliable piece. Out of three hundred, it did it about 10 times. So much for this being a CCW piece. Can't trust that. I am willing to put the mag release in by myself, but Ruger will want the gun back if I complain about that. I like my guns at home. The gun IS accurate, however. I like the sights and am impressed by the accuracy. Funny thing, my basic 1991A1 15 year old Colt had no problems whatsoever after 15 loaded mags back to back in about a minute and a half. Strange...:rolleyes:

Jim Watson
February 24, 2008, 06:45 PM
Of course it is accurate, it apparently has an undersize chamber. Have you shot other brands than UMC?

I'd return it. An undependable gun "at home" is not your friend.

nolyaw
February 24, 2008, 07:04 PM
Yes, winchester WB. It has only done it on the UMC, but who the hell wants a picky $400 gun? The owners manual clearly states that " no known brand or type of ammunition fails to function in the SR9). Now I do know that some CZ's (PO1?) don't like anything but hot ammo....this should not be the case with this gun. I hope not. You know, the magazines always test with the finest quality of ammo you can buy. What's up with that? I guess all the free stuff is the best stuff. Like I am going to go to the range with 1000 rounds of Black Hills.

arizona98tj
February 24, 2008, 07:13 PM
Sorry to hear about the SR9 issues. Let's hope Ruger works through the new release issues. ;)

I almost bought one yesterday (had read the Ayoob write-up) but common sense caught up with me and I picked up the XD9 4". It made sense since I already had the XD45c so the holsters I have can served double duty....that and the fact that my XD45 has been flawless through its first 2000 rounds....it's hard to switch brands.

bannockburn
February 24, 2008, 09:00 PM
nolyaw

I thought about the SR9 when they first came out, but I didn't care for the trigger, and I had serious misgivings about the size and location of the safety. I think I'll wait and see what Ruger does (or doesn't), do about addressing some of these issues with the current design.

Storm
February 24, 2008, 09:05 PM
Also, I have to say that the 9 dollars for the mag release doesn't seem particularly unfair. Why should it be free? I could see it if every mag release was giving problems, but thats just not the case. I guess I can understand the principle of not wanting to spend 9 bucks on a new gun, but in the big picture it seems like a goofy thing to get worked up about.

If you go back and read it seems that Ruger changed the mag release after the first 15,000 guns produced. I doubt they did that unless there was an issue or that improvements were needed. If there was an issue it needs to be fixed, especially with something like a mag release, and charging for the part is ridiculous. If it's an easy swap then I agree that sending the part is definitely preferable to returning the gun, but getting cheap over $9 is pennywise and pound foolish on the part of Ruger. If it's an isolated event and the change to the mag release is a coincidence, at the very least it is a warranty issue and charging the $9 is once again dead wrong. That's no way to build customer loyalty and whoever made that decision at Ruger should be sent to Taurus to work :evil:

crebralfix
February 24, 2008, 09:36 PM
At $365 + transfer and shipping, you can get a used Glock 17.

nolyaw
February 24, 2008, 11:55 PM
Obviously I could have bought a Glock 17. I have 7 Glocks. I wanted something different, This is the 'new' thing. I was giving my input on my experience with the 'new' thing. The gun is MUCH slimmer than my 17. It has better sights. The grip feels better to me. But...my G17 will fire any ammo, any time anywhere...its just ugly as sin and booooring. Just giving input on the newest toy out there. I'll probably play with it for another week, then put it away, or sell it to a buddy for $350...if it does the slide malf. again, she's gone.:mad:

DENALI
February 25, 2008, 12:07 AM
:what: Lets see if I got this right, you read Ayoob's scribble and THEN you went out and BOUGHT ONE ANYWAY!:what:
I feel more than a little vindicated at the results of Mr Ayoob's latest Ruger expedition, and those of you who just had to have one......well there you are!
For those of you yet to take the plunge, keep in mind that Ruger has always been NOTORIOUS for rushing their product to market! Incidentally, my Glock-17 mags load up without any effort at all!
Now maybe some day the SR9 will be a great 9mm pistol, but that day has not yet dawned......;)
P.S. Better sights then Glock? My G-17 came from the factory with Meprolight's installed, whole pkg out the door at Sportsmens Warehouse was $569.00 compared to the regular price of a whopping $529.00 for the standard Glock set...

1911RjB
February 25, 2008, 12:18 AM
I've read both good and bad reviews on the pistol, but i'm going to have to trust Mr Ayoob, he knows more then i do, and never seems to endorse a bad product. Well as far as i can tell from the products i've used...

Anyone actually own one? That can give some more insight into this review?

12131
February 25, 2008, 12:23 AM
Get the P95. Problem solved.:D

Boats
February 25, 2008, 03:29 AM
The problem with buying a Glock is then being stuck with owning a Glock.

The poster in question wanted to try it, and the cost to have one as a range banger is low, so how can he be faulted for that?

Old Dog
February 25, 2008, 04:43 AM
Don't we all just love it, when in the course of a perfectly good thread about one particular handgun model/platform, someone always pops up and starts talking about how great his Glocks are?

Not really. Grrrhh!

DENALI
February 25, 2008, 05:46 AM
Well I imagine if you're the proud owner of a brand new SR9 you're probably wishing you were the proud owner of something else, and lets not forget, just who do you think the boys and girls from Prescott were trying to compete with? And now how about that other writer and his 12,000 rounds "without a failure" and offhand "200 yard" hits? Jeez, ya think that was just a bit of a yarn? I sure do....

TimboKhan
February 25, 2008, 07:42 AM
I think that calling another writer a liar while praising Ayoob for being objective is a bit of a stretch. 200 yard hits are possible, but they don't mean a thing. Any handgun can hit out to 200 yards from the offhand, up to and including a .22. If someone claims they can do it at will, well, then we start drifting into fish story territory. I am not familiar with the article your referencing, but who's to say that he didn't rattle off 12,000 rounds with no problem? It's not like that hasn't been done before (cough... Glock torture tests... cough). To back this up, I qoute Chuck Taylor from 1995 for a series he evidently wrote for Combat Handguns:

And now, the fall of 1995, after having fired a total of 100.000 rounds of virtually all kinds of ammunition...

Nothing has changed! The gun looks the same, feels the same, functions the same as it did before. I've done everything within reason to this gun. I've carried it all over the world, quite literally in every environmental condition known to man-- the steaming jungles of Latin America, the windblown deserts of the southwestern U.S., the 40-below zero tundra of Alaska in the winter.

And it worked-- every time. In fact, since I discovered that loading 15, rather than the rated 17, rounds into the magazine prevented the follower spring from softening, I haven't had a single malfunction. Both magazines used in this last 25.000 portion of my test remain strong and completely serviceable. And, by way of confirmation, I replaced the old springs in the magazines that failed during the test with new ones from Glock, and they, too, function perfectly.

(http://membres.lycos.fr/shooter/glock/glock4.html)

Denali, I am going to be blunt and just say that your comments smack of someone who just plain doesn't like Ruger and of someone who is taking a little bit of joy in bringing them down. I am not criticizing you, as you have the right to your opinions, but your bias is showing just as much as the writer you claim was lying.

Storm, that Ruger made a change after 15,000 pistols does not indicate that everyone was having a problem, though it certainly indicates that improvements were needed. Jeff Quinn of Gunblast.com had a pistol in the #3500 range, and he didn't report a problem. Now, does that mean he had it and didn't report it? I don't know, but I doubt it. There have been ample examples of positive reviews, and I feel certain that many of those came from that initial lot of 15,000.

Now, with that being said, it sucks your isn't working right. I can see your point about wanting a gun that works. In principle, I can agree with you. Realistically, nine bucks just isn't enough to get my hackles up, but thats just me. Hopefully, this is the only glitch that the SR9 has, because from handling one, it seems like an exceptionally nice pistol.

I would also mention that while Ayoob told the truth, but he didn't not endorse the gun. In fact, in his closing sentence he says "As it is, in its early incarnation, it's a reliable, good-pointing pistol well worth its price tag" (GUNS, P.49) He flat out said that with some relatively minor changes, it would be a "favorite". Mas is to be praised for writing an objective article. Some of his opinions are subjective (checkering the backstrap, redesigning the safety, which I actually sort of liked, or at least didn't dislike), but thats OK. A review is just that: a review.

DerbyDale
February 25, 2008, 08:00 AM
Don't we all just love it, when in the course of a perfectly good thread about one particular handgun model/platform, someone always pops up and starts talking about how great his Glocks are?

Not really. Grrrhh!

It does get old...

http://www.patheticgeekstories.com/images/beverage-Kool-Aid.jpg

RustyShackelford
February 25, 2008, 08:34 AM
I'm sure Ruger will get the - feedback around the new SR9 and make the design changes. At around $420.00 the cost is not bad but I agree with the other members who suggest a used well made, proven( ;)), semi auto pistol like the DAK/SIG P-226/9 or the HK P-2000 LEM.

Rusty S

nolyaw
February 25, 2008, 08:46 AM
Exceptionally nice pistol...well my Sig 226 Elite is an exceptionally nice pistol...as is my Colt Gunsite...this is an ok pistol. A very nice $385 pistol. Can one do better for the $525 retail? Yes In my very humble opinion. Honestly, any one can fault any gun for any reason they see fit. I was just adding to the boards by giving a report of my latest (well, I got a Colt WWI reproduction at the same time) aquisition. Am I as crazy about it as the first 15 min of ownership? Not really. I am going to try an extended range bout with it one more time this week, about 250 more rounds. That will be about 800 or so into it. If it does not funtion properly during or after that, then it is what it is.

Storm
February 25, 2008, 09:33 AM
Now, with that being said, it sucks your isn't working right. I can see your point about wanting a gun that works. In principle, I can agree with you. Realistically, nine bucks just isn't enough to get my hackles up, but thats just me.

Yes, $9 isn't that big of a deal. But if that's true then why doesn't Ruger just send out the part and be done with it? No matter whether it is a re-occuring problem or not, it is a warranty issue and since when do they charge for warranty parts? Is that their policy? Heck, by handling the matter that way they have saved on return shipping costs (and maybe shipping on the front end as well) so why pinch someone for a $9 part when they are way ahead to begin with. If Ruger told me that they were charging me for a $9 warranty part it may not be big bucks, but it would piss me off and my response would be "you've got to be kidding". No, $9 isn't a lot of money, but that isn't the point. If a small issue is handled in that manner it makes me question how they will be with a major issue. That is one piss poor way to build consumer confidence.

I say this as someone who owns and enjoys numerous Rugers (P90, P89, P94, P345).

huff
February 25, 2008, 10:38 AM
I own athe gun, I have fired the gun, 550 plus rounds. It was my first semi auto larger than a 22. Last weekend at the range guess what Mag release issue, got stuck a bunch. I am rot even going to worry about a call to Ruger.
Did that once regarding the Mags. service not good. I am not going to pay anything for the gun to work when it is less then 3 months old. My bad for buying a new model. No more SR9 and no more Rugers.

nolyaw
February 25, 2008, 02:06 PM
The mag release issue does not bother me nearly as much as the slide not going into full battery, not allowing the gun to fire. Its just a TINY bit, just the slightest push with your thumb, but it sucks. I let my female friend shoot it yesterday, who is a police officer, and a crack shot at that, and it did it to her 3 times in 1 magazine. She is left handed, and poor, so she showed interest in the gun because of its ambedextrous features and the affordability. She lost interest after she shot it. She was able to pound out around 2" groups at about 20 yards, however. The adjustable sights are nice, as well as the fit and finish. Does the slide to frame fit feel like a Sig? No. But I still say for $385-$400 its a nice American made product. Maybe they will come up with recoil spring changes and work on the small parts.

DENALI
February 25, 2008, 03:36 PM
In all fairness Timbokhan you're correct I don't like Ruger centerfire pistols, especially after the way the company handled the two defective 345's I purchased over a year apart from each other! I've made it a point ever since then to make sure prospective buyer's are as aware as I can make them!
And if you'd like, you can track all my posts regarding Ruger and their new toy's, you'll find that I was well ahead of Mr. Ayoob in pointing out the deficiencies of Rugers new pistols.
And again I'll remind you, just who do you think Prescott is trying to compete with here? No matter, the wise course in this case is to avoid what certainly is going to be a prolonged period of tweaking by Ruger. The question as I see it, do you want to be their crash test dummy?

JesseL
February 25, 2008, 06:14 PM
I've got an SR9 (serial # in the 11,000 range) that I'm perfectly happy with. I do not wish I had bought a Glock, XD, M&P, or anything else instead.

No mag release sticking. It feels a little funny but it works 100%.
No failure to return to battery.
No stoppages of any kind.
Magazines were a little stiff at first, but I can fully load them without the mag tool and without damaging my thumbs.
The trigger is currently a very smooth 5.75lbs, though it started a little rougher and stiffer.


A trigger stop would be nice to limit the overtravel, but I can easily live with it.

I suppose the safety could be a little small, if I ever used it.

TimboKhan
February 25, 2008, 06:39 PM
The question as I see it, do you want to be their crash test dummy?

Honestly? Sure, to a point. When the 345s very first came out I handled one, and I was not impressed for a variety or reasons and lost interest immediately. The SR9 is a horse of a different color. The one that I handled seemed like a very nice pistol, and I am very honestly thinking about buying one. Interestingly, it's down to the SR9 and a Glock, hahaha.

charliehustle10
February 25, 2008, 10:10 PM
Got an SR9, serial number in the 800's. Put over 2,000 rounds through it, including UMC, never had the problem with not returing to battery. Trigger sucked for the first few hundred rounds, but has really smoothed out. Saftey works well for me, similar to 1911's. Mag release is super hard to push to release mag if your angle is not dead on. Only once have had the release fail to come out, not letting a mag stay in. Not worrying me too much as it only hapened once, the mag fell out into my hand but then went right back in without a problem.
Accuracy is great, points more naturally then any glock I own.
Mags suck to load, but worth it for 17 rounds in such a thin gun...and hollow points don't pose the same problem.

Seafarer12
February 25, 2008, 11:37 PM
I am curious to see what kind of press the LCP gets. Peronally I hope it is trouble proned. It rubbed me the wrong way when I heard an interview with Ruger stating that they designed the gun from a blank sheet of paper and going by what people wanted. I use to have more respect for Ruger. As far as the SR9 I am sure they will get it worked out. I won't be buying any Ruger anytime soon. As much as I hate to admit it my next beater gun might be a Sigma. I am still bitter over my first one but for 250 and 4 hi caps. You can't get a much better deal.

JimA
February 26, 2008, 09:58 AM
I guess I'm one of the lucky people that really likes their SR9. I have 1500+ rounds through mine with no problems whatever. I have shot reloads in 115,124, and 147 grain with 0 ftf, fte, nada.:) My trigger felt pretty cruddy at first especially when dry firing, but it has smoothed out greatly and I rather like it now. The mags are a bear when you first get them but get easier with use. I see no signs of peening on my gun and the mag release works easy from both sides. I guess a good one slips through now and then.:D

ElrodCod
February 26, 2008, 10:21 AM
If this gun was secretly in R&D for three years until they got it right, why does it seem like it was rushed to market with all these problems. It's as if Ruger took a page out of MicroSoft's book.

ilbob
February 26, 2008, 10:30 AM
My theory on any new design is let the other guy be the beta tester.

I wouldn't buy a car that has not been on the market for a few years either.

highlander 5
February 26, 2008, 10:46 AM
Strom a quick aside if I may. Years ago I had a problem with a Redhawk,the hook on the hammer that connects to the main spring broke. At the time I had little if any time to fix it on my own,so I called Ruger and asked about fixing it.
$16 I was told so I sent the hammer off with a check for repairs,about a week later got the hammer back new hook and a check for......$16.
My point is just cause they say it will cost "X" doesn't mean they will charge you "X".

Storm
February 26, 2008, 11:36 AM
My point is just cause they say it will cost "X" doesn't mean they will charge you "X".

That is probably true. Hopefully Ruger will just send the part and not play games with a warranty issue. To do otherwise seems inconsistent with everything that I've heard about Ruger over the years (I've never had a warranty/customer service issue with them myself).

charliehustle10
April 15, 2008, 01:30 PM
Don't like hearing all this hat about the SR-9, but it seems like I was one of the lucky folks that got a good one. Sorry for everyone that has had/is having troubles.

Posted before that no real malfunctions after 2,00 rounds. Well over 5,000 now and have finally had the "failure to return to battery" problem. Just once, but still worth noting. Hasn't happened again, and a quick slap to the back of the gun solved the problem immediately. Had my local gunsmith completely disassemble the gun (I can't seem to put things back together if I take them apart), he found some part of the trigger to be rubbing against something inside the gun (sorry can't be specific,again not to mechanically inclined) and he smoothed it out. He also found that he had to smoothen some metal/plastic where you can see the cocking mechanism in the back of the gun.

I was dissatisfied with the trigger prior to this work, but it wasn't driving me nuts. Anyhow those that are at least somewhat mechanically inclined could easily fix the trigger in about twenty mins.

I largely agree that this pistol seemed rushed into the market, as well equipped as it is for its price I can't complain too much, but Ruger should not have put a pistol out with some many inconsistencies without being willing to repair/polish up the pistol free of charge.

vikz
April 15, 2008, 01:45 PM
I have owned an SR9 and mine did not have any of the problems mentioned and it was pretty accurate at 7 to 15yds so not sure why ayoob had a problem with it..the trigger does need to be improved but so as the glocks and xds..

DougDubya
April 15, 2008, 01:50 PM
And they discontinued the P89 for that?

I'd rather have an almost 2 inch wide tank than a messed up magazine catch and a magazine drop safety. (Good catch and mag drop safety is 'nudder story.)

goon
April 15, 2008, 02:06 PM
I agree on the charging money for sending a part when the problem is their fault.
My opinion is that if you already paid for the gun, you shouldn't have to pay any more for the gun.
Any repairs, parts, or shipping both ways should be covered by the manufacturer. Actually, I think they should send you a loaner gun to use while they fix your defective gun. Or dispatch a repair team to your house to fix your gun.
They should bend over backwards to alleviate the stress and aggrivation that they have caused you.


I just bought a 10/22 that also had reliability issues - fixed them myself just to avoid sending it back and dealing with the hassle. This BS of shipping out defective guns to people and then just expecting the customer to eat the cost is really getting old.
BTW - that isn't a slam on Ruger (I didn't even call them about my problem). It's just a comment on the gun industry in general.

Chortdraw
April 15, 2008, 11:11 PM
I like my SR-9 just fine.... good handling weapon. Great grip smooth lines and accurate. Shoots as good as my XDserv.-9. Trigger is not as good but its getting better.

George Hill
April 16, 2008, 01:55 AM
Obviously M. Ayoob got an example of the marvels of mass production and statistical process control, commonly termed a lemon.
Mas' review reflects exactly what I've seen personally, and what every customer who has purchased an SR9 from me have reported.
I think what we have here is a matter of perspective. Shooters who are wet behind the ears and don't have a lot of trigger time behind a lot of different guns might think the SR9 is just fine, compared to things like Hi Points, Bersas, Cobras, Cat-9's, other Ruger Autos and the like.

FINALLY, an honest review in G&A... and I might add, that this review counters the SR9 review a couple months back.

Kudos, Mas!

71Commander
April 16, 2008, 10:20 AM
Check this out.

http://www.downrange.tv/player.htm

Double Naught Spy
April 16, 2008, 11:21 AM
Of course, the SR9 is being recalled for a problem with the safety...

http://shootingmessengers.blogspot.com/2008/04/all-hands-ruger-recall.html

supernac
April 16, 2008, 01:50 PM
Couldn't be happier with my SR9, trigger and all. The vast majority of owners I see on the forums all love it. In fact this is the first bad review I've seen of it. All the shops in my area are selling them like hot cakes.

Mad Magyar
April 16, 2008, 03:17 PM
Mas' review reflects exactly what I've seen personally, and what every customer who has purchased an SR9 from me have reported.
I think what we have here is a matter of perspective. Shooters who are wet behind the ears and don't have a lot of trigger time behind a lot of different guns might think the SR9 is just fine, compared to things like Hi Points, Bersas, Cobras, Cat-9's, other Ruger Autos and the like.

A matter of opinion, of course...I don't think Patrick Sweeney is wet behind the ears when it comes to firing & testing a variety of pistols, even though he like others sometimes embellish a review.
In Sweeney's latest review of the SR9 and his 15,000 round torture test, you will find an entirely different, but positive viewpoint...:)
Am I swayed by these reports? Not really. In this case with a MSRP of $529 is a little steep for this Ruger....;)

Deanimator
April 16, 2008, 04:05 PM
Now, with that being said, it sucks your isn't working right. I can see your point about wanting a gun that works. In principle, I can agree with you. Realistically, nine bucks just isn't enough to get my hackles up, but thats just me. Hopefully, this is the only glitch that the SR9 has, because from handling one, it seems like an exceptionally nice pistol.

If not $9.00, then how much would you object to spending to get a brand new gun working, when you've done nothing to make it not work right? If the magazine catch doesn't work OUT OF THE BOX, without any unauthorized user modifications, that's a DESIGN FLAW, or at the very least BAD QC. Why should the purchaser have to pay ANYTHING to make the product work as promised? There is such a thing as a warranty of merchantability.

I haven't had the opportunity to handle an SR9 yet. I won't get the opportunity to shoot one unless somebody at the club brings one on open shooting night, since I don't ever go anywhere that rents firearms (too little supervision - I HATE getting swept). From the G&A Handguns review, it seems like an interesting pistol. Based on what I've heard here, I won't be buying one until Ruger gets it straightened out.

seeker_two
April 16, 2008, 11:27 PM
And, for this reason, I'm glad I can get all the "discounted" P89's and P95's I can find.... :D

boomstik45
April 17, 2008, 12:42 AM
I'll take a P-series Ruger before I'd take the SR9. I think it has a few too many "bugs" to work out. The last Ruger semi-auto I liked was the P90.

In fact, if adamant about not getting a glock 9mm...I'd get a Smith and Wesson M&P 9mm. Pay the extra money. Don't think it's a good idea? Well, a mailed in rebate card and copy of your receipt of purchase and you'll get a $50 check from S&W, as well as two free mags (which normally cost more than $30 apiece). Oh, and it's accurate and has 17 round mags.

To heck with that Ruger....but that's just me:D

George Hill
April 17, 2008, 03:02 AM
A matter of opinion, of course...I don't think Patrick Sweeney is wet behind the ears when it comes to firing & testing a variety of pistols, even though he like others sometimes embellish a review.

I rest my case.

If you enjoyed reading about "Ayoob Reviews the Ruger SR9 ..." here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!