[Riphalman]

I'm in the market for a new 9mm pistol. I've never owned a 9 before, having always favored the .45. After some shopping I'm feeling a little boggled. Man...there are a LOT of choices out there. I like the looks of the CZ's and the glocks and XD's are very nice. I've owned and used plenty of Rugers before in the Mk.1 and 2 formats as well as the single sixes. The Ruger 9's don't look too bad...a little chunky maybe, but not bad and the price is pretty attractive too. How do Y'all feel about the Ruger nines? Are they a good option?

[Nanook]

As you noted, they are kind of chunky. I did not like the trigger on the P89 I had, but the gun shot everything I put into it without a single problem.
I wound up selling it and replacing it with another brand 9mm. This is not at all a slam on Ruger, I own several other of their guns and like them all. I especially like the Mark II target and the 10/22. And you just can't beat their revolvers.

To your original question, if you haven't shot a CZ75 check one out. You'll be pleasantly surprised. IIRC the price range is similar to the Rugers, around 320 dealer.

[Riphalman]

Is the pistol that you replaced the Ruger with equally reliable? Also, how do you feel about the polymer frames? Any issues? My ccw is presently a gov't .45 and it does get sweaty in warm weather. Rust isn't a real big concern, but maybe polymer would eliminate that concern altogether.

[firestar]

The SS Ruger P95 is a nice gun. It is very corrosion resistant and not as bulky as some of the other Ruger autos (P-89).

I compared the P95 to the H&K USP compact 9mm and I really feel that the Ruger is made better. It at least has a metal trigger and controls! I can't believe that H&K is asking the price they are and they out that cheap flimsy plastic trigger on them.

IMHO the Ruger P95 is every bit the equel of the H&K for less than half the price!

Get a used one and save some cash. Not much goes wrong with them so you don't have to worry.

[TheFrontRange]

Ditto those positive comments on the Ruger P95s. I had the decocker-only model (P95DC) and it was a great pistol, accurate and utterly reliable. Carried mine as a CCW piece and as a duty weapon while volunteering as a Reserve Deputy Sheriff. The performance AND price of the pistol were excellent!

[444]

I own a P89. I also own a number of other 9mm handguns and have owned even more 9mm handguns. I think the P89 is a great pistol. If I could only own one 9mm, I wouldn't bat an eye if it was the P89. I have put a lot of ammo though mine. I have competed at IDPA and IPSC with it. I have shot ground squirrels, jackrabbits, coyotes, and even a running wounded mule deer with it. It has digested every round of ammo I fed it, it exhibits decent accuracy, and I think it looks pretty good.
From someone who actually owns a P89 and has spent quite a bit of time with it, I can't think of anything negative to say about it.

Yes, I would get rid of my Glock 17 before the P89. Maybe not the Browning Hi-Power though.

[Gerald McDonald]

No reason not to get a Ruger. I had a 95 DC several years ago that I probably put 4-5000 rounds thru. Only problem I had was it started throwing the emptys back at me, then eventually just dropped them on my wrist. That happened after a about 1000 rounds of blazers aluminum. Sent it back to Ruger and got it back after 1 1/2 weeks. Never had a problem after that.

I started thinking I was not happy with the size of the groups so I went the Glock 17 route. Then fired the Ruger and the Glock side by side every range trip. Found out pretty fast the Ruger was dead even in accuracy with the 17, maybe even a little better. Traded both off and aquired a Glock 34, big improvement in group size. Then a buddy/dealer talked me into a Kimber classic. At that point I started my downhill slide (Kimber would leave one ragged hole if I did what I was supposed to) . After shooting about 1000 rounds thru the Kimber I could not transition from S/A trigger too the Glock very easily. Traded the Glock off on a Browning HP and have never looked back.

The only downside to the Ruger was that 4-5 years ago, it was hard to find aftermarket sights and smiths who would work on them. That doesnt appear to be the case anymore. I dont know what the moral of my story is (I get to rambling and forget what I was going to say) but I have owned Ruger, Taurus,Glock, HK USP, Colt, Kimber and Browning. The only pistol I wish I hadnt really traded was the Ruger. They are a little bulky, but mine was a dependable firearm that held up its end of the bargin.

What was the question?

Gerald

[Lexter]

I would suggest looking/trying the Ruger P-95 or P-89 or the
P-94.

I picked up a P-95 last year and love it. I have 3 Rugers now and have no complaints.

Try the trigger, ergonomics, etc. If it fits you and your needs, go for it with no regrets!!





Lexter in NC

[10-Ring]

Whether your bias sways one way or the other, I usually recommend you rent a few contenders before you purchase. I've only shot a couple 9mm Rugers. They seem well made are very reliable but I prefer something else.
Go try out a few & buy the one that fits you best & works best for you.

[sm]

Some of the Security/Armored guards use them. One's I've shot were the poly/steel (forget model). Mostly the decock ...anyway these persons could probably ruin a anvil with a rubber hammer...gun's have held up...better than the owners at times...

Fits a price point, for these persons...
I shot them pretty well...though I'd want to tweak the trigger on some...some actually had good triggers...decent enough...

[ojibweindian]

I had a P95. Really nice pistol.

[COK]

I have about 700rds through a P-95 and it has worked perfectly for me . I would buy anouther if I needed one . And there a good price.

[444]

Riphalman
Trying to decide on a 9mm handgun is a trauma. Just a few years ago, I didn't own a single one. I had owned a few but foolishly sold them all. I personally have almost no interest in the 9mm caliber. But I kept looking at all that 9mm brass I had. But what really hooked me was all the super cool guns out there in 9mm. I mean, I like them all. So I got the P89, then a Hi-Power, then a couple more Hi-Powers, then the Glock, then the Kel-Tec............ Heck I have three carbines in 9mm. I couldn't resist them. I have 9mm revolvers for cripe sakes. I haven't fired a 9mm handgun in six months and I would still like to have a Sig 226, a Smith Model 39.................................

[CZF]

Look at the Ruger as an entry-level autopistol. Don't expect
much from it other than being reliable.

The Rugers used to be a Price Champ. However. the price has
came up in the past couple years. Ruger moved to AZ for
cheaper labor, but raised prices???

I also think that true Factory hi-caps for the 9mms are way high.

Compared to a sleek CZ75B, or a Beretta copy the P series feels "clunky' in my hands.

There are a lot of good 9mms on the market now. If Price
is an object, then the Ruger would probably win.

They are not adopted by a large number of agencies and
no military that i know of uses the P series. I think those
depts that have adopted Rugers, went for the low price.

Stainless option is nice, wish CZ would offer a true stainless
gun.

I owned a P89, it was reliable, but paled in comparison
to my CZ75, Police trade-in G17 and Beretta police special
92FS.


That is just my opinion of them.

[Gerald McDonald]

Actually to me the Beretta feels pretty chunky compared to a High Power:D
Gerald

[444]

Why would you want to limit yourself to Ruger factory mags. Aftermarket full capacity mags are readily available for very reasonable prices. I think I have 15 of them and they don't miss a beat. As I mentioned, I competed in action pistol sports using my P89 and aftermarket mags and reliability was never an issue.

[goon]

Before I read any of the other posts, I just thought to myself immediately: "because you can get a CZ for the same money".
That is all the reason that I would need.

[444]

Great. Get one and start a CZ thread.

[Longbow]

I'de get a CZ. Reliable, better ergonomics, better trigger pull, slimmer and better looking! I have shot both and liked the CZ better. Accuracy is a tad better on the CZ in my hands! Good luck with whatever you decide!

[Boats]

You get a Ruger and nearly everyone thinks you couldn't afford more or your taste runs to tacky if you could've laid more green. You get a CZ-75 or 85 and you mark yourself as a savvy gunner who picked up one of the world's best 9mm pistols for a steal.:D

Besides, ol' man Ruger, RIP, is one of the primary reasons 9mm full-cap mags cost so bloody much. I will never buy a Ruger.

[mini14jac]

If you try a Ruger, and like it, I don't think you'll ever look back.
I always thought Ruger grips were a little large for my hands.
When the P95 came out, it was a much better fit.
Not quite as ergonomic as some, but I decided to give it a try.

One warning:
A box of $11/100 9mm from Walmart will disappear in less than 20 minutes when you get the Ruger to the range.
I can't believe how fast I go through ammo whith this gun.

Part of the problem is standard capacity (15 rd.) mags.
I have found factory originals for $30 on the auction boards, and a new 6rd mag for my Kahr cost that much.
Even after-market mags that cost $11 can be found that will work like a charm.

I was shocked at how accurate the gun was.
With 600+ rounds through it, is boringly reliable with everything I have put through it.

Let's see:
1. Low cost.
2. Reliable.
3. Accurate.
4. American made.
5. Some of the cheapest hi-caps in the industry.
6. Some of the best customer service in the industry.

Why would you buy a piece of junk like that? :rolleyes: :D

[denfoote]

The P95 is a good gun, if you can find a way to conceal it!! I have not discovered that way, yet!! So, it's Walther P99 for me, now that Glock seems to have jumped on the gun control bandwagon!!

[Kahr carrier]

I like the Ruger p94 myself had one before it was reliable and stainless and it didnt break the bank. It was a great entry level 9mm and a plus Ruger stands behind their product.:)

[Gerald McDonald]

If you decide on the CZ, try it out first or be prepared for some trigger work. I used to have a CZ75 S/A and while it was super accurate, it would raise the hammer about an 1/8" while pulling the trigger and felt like the hammer was sliding on a rasp. I tried to find a smith that would work on them, and at that time (2 years ago) no one wanted to touch them. C&S said they had iffy heat treat of the internals and the trigger jobs didnt hold well. Some would respond very well to a trigger job while others would wear very fast after a little stoning. Laughridge's advice was shoot it as it is and it will work great.
Teddy Jacobson told me he thought the problem lay more in the fact they are assembled with roll pins and a real PIA to work on. He said the internals looked like Taurus used to. His words were that the internals all looked like someone had cut them by hand with a file.
I have heard that the factory does some pretty good trigger jobs on them, and Jacobson said he would do the work, so if you end up with a bad trigger it can be fixed. If you shoot with a high thumb grip, the safety on the CZ S/A was easy to hold. Again very accurate, but the sight picture was never that good for me as it seemed the front blade showed too much slide.
If you can get a set of sights for the Ruger and have the trigger cleaned up you wont find much wrong other than looks and size. I wouldnt worry too much about what other shooters think if it fits your hand and you like it. Had a kid at he shooting range of about 25 or 30 ask me during a lull, why I like shooting that old time pistol (BHP) when for the same money I could have probably picked up a Glock. And while I'm no crack shot, his target looked like he used a shot gun. I answered with, the gun appeared to suit me well and for the money I had in it (Kurt Wickmann) I could have had two Glocks.

Theres not really a wrong choice
Gerald

[LeadPumper]

Bought one cause I wanted a cheap 9mm. Kept it cause it never jammed, aimed POA, and ate everything I fed it.

It is larger than some other 9's, but it's built like a tank. If it fits your hand and it's in good condition, you could do far worse.

I like CZ's too. Looking for a SA as my next 9mm.

Maybe next show...

-LeadPumper

[Sean Smith]

Why not get a 9mm Ruger? Because a CZ-75B is equal to or better than any Ruger semi-auto in ALL respets and costs the same amount of money.

Rugers have, in no particular order: worse ergonomics, worse safety placement, worse triggers out of the box, worse accuracy, worse looks, stinkier sights and are more crudely fitted & finished than a CZ-75B. Both are equally reliable, on average.

I've owned the CZ and shot it side-by-side with the Ruger. No contest. Even the Ruger owner agreed. :D

The Ruger isn't a bad gun. It is reliable and rugged, after all. You can just do better for the money by getting a CZ. It ain't even close IMHO.

[RON in PA]

My 2 cents: I've owned a Ruger 89 and foolishly got rid of it years ago, mostly because it was boringly reliable, never a bobble. I now have a KP-95 and consider it to be Ruger's best auto. Also boringly reliable, but I won't get rid of this one. The big problem with Rugers is their ergonomics and "feel" compared with other 9mmPs. While it isn't a SIG 228, a Glock 17 or a Hi-power (my favorite nines) it is probably as reliable as they are and that should be your first criterion. Would love to do a study with 100 examples of each of the major 9mmP service pistols put through their paces in standardized tests with at least 50,000 rounds through each. I bet that the Ruger would hold its own.

When the topic of Ruger autos comes up CZ lovers chime in claiming that CZs are better values for the same amount of money. While the "feel" of the CZ is better I don't like the trigger with its stacking just before release and I don't think they are as reliable. Had too many feeding problems with mine. Ok for a range gun, maybe.

[Stealthfixr]

IMHO, I found the CZ to be a better 9mm pistol than any other 9mm I had shot (including USPs, Rugers, S&W and Glock). The great price just made it an easy buy. My CZ gets shot at every range trip--very fun, accurate, comfortable and eats all the ammo I can give it perfectly. My P-89 was a good pistol with near perfect reliability, but it seemed clunky, uncomfortable and with a relatively poor trigger in comparison. Good luck!

[USGuns]

The Ruger P95 compares very favorably to guns it should be compared to. It's not the best gun for concealed carry but neither is the Glock 17 - the Glock gun it most closely approximates.

I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder but see the attached picture and tell me which gun is the ugliest and which is the best looking? Those euro-guns look like they were designed by committee, whereas the Ruger is sleek and functional.

Gun-Tests did a test a few years back and picked the P95 over the Glock 17, a Sig, an HK and a CZ: http://www.gun-tests.com/pub/11_8/features/4507-1.html

The Ruger is just as accurate as the Glock, much more affordable, VERY reliable and made in the good ol'USA. The Glock is slightly lighter but is longer and has a grip like a brick. The widths and heights are similar.

I'd guess the Glock is more popular due to it's wide acceptance by law enforcement. Many folks also prefer the Glock trigger but the longer-pull of the Ruger is safer.

Personally I chose the KP95DAO -- it offers revolver-like simplicity of operation and reliability. Yet there are affordable after-market 15 and even 17-round magazines available for it.

IMHO
Good luck!

[444]

"Many folks also prefer the Glock trigger but the longer-pull of the Ruger is safer."

Keep in mind that the long and heavy trigger on the Ruger only applies to the first shot just like all other double action autos. After the first shot, the hammer is cocked and you get a much nicer trigger pull. With the Glock, the trigger stays the same all the time, which is not a bad thing at all. I don't know much about the CZ75 but I do know that you can get it in a single action variant, which appeals to me. If you haven't done a lot of auto pistol shooting in the past, this probably doesn't matter. But before I ever bought a double action auto I had fired tens of thousands of round through a 1911. I had a heck of a time getting used to the double action. Often I would fire the second shot into the ground. Of course after shooting a double action for awhile, I got used to it. But, if you own other single action handguns and are considering a 9mm, it might make very good sense to buy a single action 9mm also. I have heard nothing but good things about the CZ75. The other good one (which is my choice) is the Browning Hi-Power.

[Gerald McDonald]

Forgot too mention that when I sent it back to the factory I talked to a lady in the repair and asked how many rounds I should be able to run through it before a rebuild was needed. She said it would be on the far side of 300,000. Also said it loved a diet of +p ammo. I wont argue about the +p.
Gerald

[Riphalman]

to all of you folks who responded to my question. I still havn't decided which way to go, but you've sure given me plenty to think about.

[Boats]

Not to quibble overmuch, but that CZ 100 the Ruger beat in Gun Tests is not nearly the pistol that the CZ 75/85 is.

[USGuns]

444, Sorry I wasn't very clear in my post but I meant the long trigger pull of the DAO P95 is safer. Very much like a revolver.

[Fair 'n Square]

I've said it before. I'll say it again. I bought a CZ85 some years ago, and kept it for about a month. A friend let me shoot his Ruger, and I promptly sold the CZ and bought a Ruger.

Right now my favorites are my Rugers - P95, .22/45, and P94 (in .40 S&W), in that order. One thing though, I've put Hogue wrap-around grips on them. That makes a BIG difference in the way they feel.

I think most people who bash the Rugers base their feelings on the P89 thru P91. Yes, they're big and bulky and good shooters. But starting with the P93, and on, Rugers have a better look and feel to them IMHO.

Glocks don't feel good to me. But I confess - there's a gun show tomorrow, and I'm going to take a long look at a Springfield XD!

[ojibweindian]

I had the P95 for several y ears, and it provided good service. I never would have rid myself of it if i hadn't tried the CZ-75. I have found the CZ-75 to be more accurate, more balanced in my hand, more ergonomically pleasing, and just as reliable.

I like the fact that I can carry it in SA mode. It's somewhat slimmer, so IWB carry is easier. And, it looks much better.

[Sisco]

Had a P95 for several years, shot the heck out of it. It digested anything I fed it, any failures were not the fault of the gun.
Though I thought it was a pretty nice piece, it didn't bother me all that much to trade it off when I got the need a new gun bug about a year ago.

[SouthpawShootr]

Rugers are certainly a good option. I, myself, like the P95. I don't have one (yet), but I wouldn't have second thoughts about relying on one for my life. They are good solid guns that will likely stand up to more shooting than you can do. About the only real drawback is that they are a bit too big, but I don't think that's insurmountable. Trigger seems to be a bit less than ideal, but you can adjust to it (or have it adjusted to you, your preference). Standard capacity mags are all over the place. These autos strike me as excellent overall values.

[Rob96]

Rugers are fine handguns. I never had any malfunctions with the 9mm I used to have and with the P-90 I own. Had a CZ and would experience malfunctions after firing about 75 rounds, and it happened with all of the factory mags I had and different ammo. True there aren't a lot of police agencies who issue Rugers, but who cares. It all depends on what works for you. No need to feel ashamed becaue you own a Ruger. Last March I actually went into a shop to buy a Sig P220 for my birthday, I walked out with my P-90. No regrets.:D

[Riphalman]

to all of you who responded to my questions. I'm starting to think that the Ruger looks like a good option. I am a little amused by the concept of "entry level" pistol, though. Would that be for folks who are just learning the art of personal combat and are not yet able to handle REAL defensive weaponry. Like some day they may be able to graduate to a more lethal 9mm? Or perhaps it comes with optional training wheels.

[444]

I have been wondering the same thing. I shoot an entry level Ruger auto. I got my first Ruger auto (a .22LR Mk. I) about 32 years ago and have been shooting them ever since. Since that time I have probably averaged a few hundred rounds a month with a handgun of some type. I can't wait until I grow into an intermedate level pistol. I don't think I have enough years left for an advanced level pistol.
There was a guy on The Firing Line who won his divison at the IDPA nationals using a Ruger P89 and his son won his division using a Ruger P89. Think what they could do with an intermediate level gun.
Masad Ayoob (sp ?) carries a Ruger auto on duty last I heard. He has won his share of shooting championships, owns and teaches at The Lethel Force Institute, and carries a gun on a daily basis as a police officer and I believe his department's firearms instructor. Imagine what will happen when he does away with his entry level gun !!!!!

[JeepDriver]

Ruger P95

The price is right. The gun will shoot every bit as well and as long if not longer then guns costing 3 to 4 times as much. Plus The 15 round mags are cheap, unlike the H&K or Glock

[.45Ruger]

I really like mine it's affordable, reliable and I found 15 round mags at the gun show for $13, can't beat that.

[gumshoe4]

I haven't shot a CZ, so will provide no commentary regarding that make.

I have a Ruger P95DC and the .45 version, the P97DC. They're just great. As I have reported many times before, I have NEVER had a FTF or FTE in the P95 and it's had about 1500-2000 rounds through it. I had 2 or 3 FTFs in the P97 in the first 100 rounds I shot in it, then NEVER another and it's had about 750 rounds through it.

The major drawback is that the Rugers are a little chunky, although the .45 is skinnier than the 9mm due to the single stack mag. The other drawback is because it's a Ruger, it's chunky and it doesn't have a fancy European name or heritage, some shooters look down their noses at them. They're making a big mistake when they do that.

I recently bought a Sig P225 pistol which was formerly owned by the Swiss Federal police. I received much interesting input about it before I picked it up. I shot it for the first time about a month ago. It's a nice pistol with good accuracy. Mine had difficulty feeding 115 grain W-W white box JHPs consistently. I also brought my Ruger to the range. The Ruger fed (and always has) any 9mm round I gave it, from el cheapo 115 grain FMJ through W-W 147 +P+ law enforcement only ammo and its trigger pull was better than that used Sig.

Am I saying the Ruger is better than the Sig? No, but I am saying that the Ruger is a damn fine pistol and right now, I'll reach for it rather than the Sig until I get the Sig's bugs worked out-then we'll see.

And one other thing-I don't know what someone means when they refer to a "beginner's" gun, but whatever that means, I've owned and shot handguns extensively for the last 20 years and I didn't buy the P95DC until about three years ago. The Rugers are not "beginner's" guns, any more than any other gun. They do what they're supposed to do and they do it VERY well indeed. Count me a Ruger autopistol fan.

Bob
TFL# 8032

[chaim]

I have owned a P89 and shot P94s and I will say I will never own another Ruger 9mm, though I probably will own a .45acp P90.

One of my friends had a P90 that was incredibly accurate (for the price the gun had no business being that accurate), reliable, indestructable, and inexpensive. I actually kinda like the looks of the P90 and P89. However, they are kind of crude and don't feel to me to be very "nice".

His gun was a good enough value that after some looking I decided upon a P89 as my first auto and second handgun. I really wanted the P90 but didn't want exactly what my friend had and as an only auto the cost savings of shooting 9mm ammo made the P89 more attractive as well.

Well, it was 100% reliable for me (out of about 2K rounds) and did seem indestructable. However, it inspired absolutely no pride of ownership. Worse, it wasn't very accurate for me and being a new shooter at the time there was no excuse for me to be more accurate than the gun (though it could just have been that it wasn't a good ergonomic match and in other hands it would be accurate- though I doubt it since I was accurate w/ the dimensionally identical P90). I was accurate w/ friends guns and with rentals (well, more accurate than w/ the P89 anyway) so it wasn't just me. Am I willing to grant that I may have just had a bad one- yes and no. I've heard from many others that the P89 isn't particularly accurate. However, I may have simply had too high expectations because of the P90.

If you are set on a Ruger 9mm I'd suggest the P95 because it is supposed to be more accurate.

For me, I'm one of the voices that would suggest a CZ. Mine is almost 100% reliable, and most people seem to have similar experiences. However, I would say the Ruger is somewhat more reliable- I have heard of lemon CZs (not many) but never a lemon Ruger 9mm, plus I've had a very small number of bobbles w/ my CZ and I had NONE w/ the Ruger. Where the CZ really shines is everywhere else. It is amazingly accurate, the ergonomics are such that it fits almost everyone's hand well, the fit and finish is great, and it just feels like a quality gun. I loved mine so much that I got a CZ 40B a few months later and now a year later I am considering another 75/85 variant, a 97 and/or a 100 before the supply of CZs dry up in MD (they don't have the MD required built-in lock so any made after Jan 1, 2003 can't be sold here).

Other good budget 9mms to look at as well:
-A Hi Power clone. These guns have great ergonomics and are a classic design. The FEG and FM clones have good reps and are both quite inexpensive (especially the FEG will be significantly less than a CZ or a Ruger).
-A Taurus PT 92 or PT 911. The metal framed Taurus autos are very high quality guns. The PT 92 is a little more than a Ruger however, though the PT 911 will be about the same.
-A S&W 908 or 910. The value series S&Ws are about as good as the regular guns but cost about the same as Ruger.
-A used SIG, Glock or S&W.

[Soap]

Because Ruger doesn't give a hoot about private citizen shooters...even now that Bill passed away.

http://www.shotshowreports.com/2003pg1.html

[gumshoe4]

I suppose that's true, considering how many of Ruger's firearms are designed and marketed for law enforcement and the military. I can't tell you how many Ruger automatics, GP100s and Redhawks I've seen in police holsters, not to mention all those single action Blackhawks and Vaqueros.

And of course, let's not forget that most fearsome weapon, intended only for the hands of the military and law enforcement-the Ruger Mark II .22 pistol.

Yep, no doubt about it. Ruger doesn't care about t"private citizen shooters" at all.

:rolleyes:

Bob
TFL# 8032

[Sean Smith]

You mean aside from pushing for the 10-round mag limit, of course. :rolleyes:

[Riphalman]

that the 10 round limit on magazine capacity is one of the more absurd pieces of anti-gun owner legislation ever passed in this country, and damn any gun manufacturer who may have supported it against the wishes of the free citizenry of this great country. However, I also think it's important to remember how much we all gained from Bill Ruger and his company. I remember using Ruger products from the time I was quite young and never, ever questioned their reliability. I expected them to always work.....and they did. Despite any mistakes he may have made, Ruger gave a lot more to American shooters than he took....in my opinion.

[RON in PA]

Lets set the record straight: Bill Ruger did not call for 10 shot magazines, he called for a 15 round limit (probably to counter Glock's 17 rnd. mag.) . He latter recanted and made a $ 1 million donation to the NRA.

[gumshoe4]

I apologize for going off-topic.

Ron is correct.

Please excuse my somewhat sarcastic reply to Daniel. I get a little annoyed when someone makes a very slanted statement without having the facts straight or even without any supporting data at all.

Bill Ruger intended from the beginning to make firearms for law-abiding citizens and those have been the firearms he designed and built. While a few of them, notably the select-fire version of the Mini-14, were designed specifically for the law enforcement market, Ruger's other designs were made for ownership by private citizens and were, in some cases, adopted by law enforcement agencies (the Mini-14, some of the DA revolvers and some of the semi-auto pistols in a few law enforcement agencies). A large share of the business of S&W, Glock and Sig has been devoted to law enforcement and military application, with sales to citizens essentially incidental to the main part of the business. Several companies, including S&W and Glock, have relied on their law enforcement contracts to keep them alive at the expense of their sales to private citizens and have made some pretty unpopular marketing and business decisions over the last 5-10 years. S&W is just now coming out of its sales slump which directly resulted from private gun owners avoiding the brand after the Clinton HUD agreement, which is now essentially dead in the water. Glock is just starting to have its own problems, primarily related to its slide rail difficulties and its apparent disinterest in taking care of private Glock owners, relying instead on taking care of the law enforcement contracts in order to maintain its business status.

By comparison, Ruger has very few major law enforcement contracts. Officers who carry Rugers do so primarily because they buy them themselves. Ruger is, and always has been, the gun for the common man and the private citizen. To think otherwise is simply ignorant.

With regard to Bill Ruger's statement about magazines, I will be the first to state that his comments were ill-advised, if not outright stupid. Mr. Ruger later realized he stuck his foot in his mouth and tried to make amends. His comments were bad and uncalled-for, but that's ALL they were. They did not result in the imposition of the 10-round magazine law. The politicians were going to do that no matter what Bill Ruger said and I suspect that most of them did not even know what Ruger said. What Bill Ruger said or did PALES IN COMPARISON to what Smith & Wesson did. Moreover, it should be clearly noted that Ruger has stood fast in the face of the civil liability lawsuits brought forth by the Center to Prevent Handgun Violence (or whatever its current name is) and the municipalities involved. Ruger has put its money where its mouth is and has used its legal department to deal with these lawsuits. S&W's agreement was merely a dodge to avoid the lawsuits, but it didn't work.

I'd be interested to know if there's anyone here who has never made a stupid statement or two which affected others. I think we need to be careful how we judge Ruger, his company and his firearms. I also think that if we are going to make statements like Daniel did, we better back them up with some facts and some common sense and not just spout the latest hyperbole we've heard someone say.

OK, rant off. I'll take my heat, if I have to, but that's the way I feel about it.

Back on topic, the Ruger autopistols are topnotch and I recommend them highly, as I previously stated.

Respectfully,

Bob
TFL# 8032

[Soap]

Bob,

I took no offense. The fact that Bill uttered the "honest man" or the "I never intended" quotes on TV (not to mention other remarks in American Handgunner was downright stupid. And insulting. The fact that the founder of a gun company would even say that just shows me where his loyalties lie. He basically alienated his biggest market. But now that he has passed on, its no longer an issue for me.

The issue for me is that Ruger's company seems to cater to the crowd that thinks all guns should be banned besides the ones they hunt with. If I were in Ruger's position, I would make 10-rounders and ship them by the thousands to poor Kalifornians. I believe that Ruger's founder created a legacy of catering to the flabby flannel crowd and ignoring the RKBA crowd. They really haven't done anything to change my perception. YMMV of course.

[gumshoe4]

Whatever, Daniel. You said your piece and, as one of the "flabby flannel crowd" you rather insultingly referred to, I said mine.

Let's get back on topic.

Anyone else with opinions, hints and kinks regarding Ruger semiauto pistols?

Bob
TFL# 8032

[Gary A]

As a minor addendum to the criticism that Ruger regularly receives over the magazine limit, both their perceived part in it and their failure to produce 10 round magazines for the Mini, I would like to note, in their favor, that while many companies are adding built-in key locks of various configurations to all of their products, Ruger continues to produce plain-jane autopistols and revolvers built on the presumption emobodied in their logo "Arms Makers for Responsible Citizens", i.e. they expect the buyer to be responsible. That doesn't appear to be "caving in" at all since it will likely cost them sales in certain states. I think Mr. Ruger had his own ideas on many things and made a mistake on the magazine question and continues to pay for it even after he is gone. I continue to pay for some of my earlier mistakes also, as do most of us. Such is life.

[jonptoms]

Quote: Lets set the record straight: Bill Ruger did not call for 10 shot magazines, he called for a 15 round limit (probably to counter Glock's 17 rnd. mag.) . He latter recanted and made a $ 1 million donation to the NRA.

Not true. A paraphrased quote from Ruger was "No honest man needs more than 10 rounds".

Back to the original topic, I've had a Ruger p85-Mark II since they came out. It was a steal back then, and it has been the most reliable gun I've ever seen. Feeds empty resized cases.

No indications of wear after all these years. Breaks down real easy too, and hi cap mags are cheap.

ONly thing I don't like is the decocker, but they were all the rage back then. I'm sure now you can get one of the decock only versions (the decocker on the p85-m2 is also a safety, but it works in the wrong direction )

[wildthing]

In 9mm the P-95 is a great pistol. feels good in the hand, very reliable, recoil does not happen and it rides very well in a belt holster.

If you are looking at other Ruger 9mms the P-93 has a smoother trigger than the 95 but you pay more and they are harder to find. the 94 is bigger than the 93 and 95. The triggers on these pistols are easier to reach than the p85 through p91.

I could not describe the P85- P91 as feeling good in the hand. A Houge replacement grip did make these pistols feel better.

I would highly recommend the P-95dc the polymer frame has one of the best melted/dehorned feels of any pistols out there.

[chaim]

, I would like to note, in their favor, that while many companies are adding built-in key locks of various configurations to all of their products, Ruger continues to produce plain-jane autopistols and revolvers To me that is a major negative as that means I can no longer buy their handguns.

Luckily, (since I want a GP100, a Single Six and a Vaquero) they have told local dealers that they will be producing MD legal handguns soon (hence, guns w/ built-in locks).

I do hope for the rest of you that it is an option so you can get them without it, unlike some of you I'm not so selfish. To hope a company never adds the locks means for some of us they are illegal- and frankly I like the choice allowed when I can get them. Why shouldn't they at least add them as options for people in states like mine, or who happen to want them (I'm sure there are some people like that).

[Gary A]

Well, Chaim, since I generally don't like to think of myself as outrageously selfish, I thought I'd reply. I have some guns with added safeties (Winchester, Marlin, and Rossi/LSI leverguns) and don't find them too onerous (many do) but I am not enamored of the Smith and Wesson and Taurus locks, for example. I'm sure they are fine and one day I might just accept them as normal but, having said that, I much prefer the models and manufacturers that expect the user to have the sense not to shoot himself or to place his/her weapon where unauthorized people, especially children can shoot themselves or someone else. If all manufacturers add the locks to please the legislators in, say, your state, then you get something close to what you want, and I have to live with what you get also. That sounds selfish on the part of folks in your state. I hope they make special models for folks who can't get the regular models, but most likely manufacturers will make one model to meet the lowest common denominator and the rest of us will have to live with what your legislators desire and with what the voters in your state allow. I'm sorry for your legislature...heck, I'm sorry for mine, but that doesn't change the fact that one of the thing I like about Rugers is their lack of extra added doohickies designed to protect me (and them) from my own stupidity and bottom-feeding trial lawyers looking for a bigger house. Safeties or the lack of them are not my bottom-line when it comes to purchase, but it's nice to know that the "arms-maker for the responsible citiizen" considers us to be just that - responsible. Yah wanna lock up the gun? That's what a gun-safe is designed to do. Why should everyone have to live by the short-sighted standards set upon you by your legislators?

P.S. (This is the edited part.) Since I came across a bit irritated with you above, let me apologize for that. I have read your posts here and on TFL over the past couple of years or so and realize that you are an enthusiastic handgunner and are really enjoying your foray into this recreation. If you're anything like me you probably want to be sure you get the things you want to keep before some bozo says you can't have them, so I really sympathize with your worry about not being able to buy firearms without the locks. Let's all work for the day that such possibilities are just a fading concern and not a cause for division amongst shooters and appeasement among manufacturers. All this "anti" stuff isn't about guns anyway...it's only about power.

[chaim]

If all manufacturers add the locks to please the legislators in, say, your state, then you get something close to what you want, and I have to live with what you get also. That sounds selfish on the part of folks in your state. I'm pretty sure I covered that by saying I hope they add them as options.

I do understand that most that bother will be going the easy way and putting them on standard and I have a problem with that.

As far as your PS, don't worry about it. I probably should have used a less loaded word than selfish myself, I understand not wanting locks and most people don't think that some areas are adding these infernal laws.

Also, I see the best outcome being my state overturning this horrid law and no other state passing one. Unfortunately, I think that is unlikely. In addition to this state never repealing a "gun control" law I'm sure other like minded states (IL, MA, NY, CA, NJ) will probably be adding them soon.

However, even if these laws die the death they deserve, I would like to see manufacturers making built-in locks available as an option (shouldn't be too hard, how many, like Ruger, make the same gun available w/ a decocker safety, decocker only, DAO, etc. and even like CZ w/ safety, SA, decocker, etc). Some people probably appreciate them and for them they should be available. Then if they can't sell enough to people who choose them the locks should die a gentle death (the old free market thing).

[Gary A]

Chaim, good points all. I especially agree with you that without those "infernal" (apt word) laws, the marketplace would easily determine which features survived and which would not. A lot of it is what one is used to. I got into leverguns after the cross-bolt safeties came in and they don't bother me at all. Lever-guys who "teethed" on the older versions just plain can't stand 'em. I kinda feel that way about Ruger and Smith and Wesson revolvers. Safety locks? Yuck!! (What I really think is not appropriate to post but it rhymes.)