1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

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

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Scott13, Mar 26, 2003.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Scott13

    Scott13 Well-Known Member

    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 ?
  2. MiniZ

    MiniZ Well-Known Member

    Ruger had an entry in the trials that were eventually "won" by Beretta. They didn't cut the mustard.
  3. flinch

    flinch Well-Known Member

    I wouldnt hesitate to carry a P94 or P95 into combat. Never messed with the P89. Tough, dependable accurate etc etc and AMERICAN made.
  4. Mylhouse

    Mylhouse Well-Known Member

    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.
  5. Blueduck

    Blueduck Well-Known Member


    Landing rights in Southport, CT were not vital to us at that time ;)
  6. .45Ruger

    .45Ruger Well-Known Member

    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.
  7. Handy

    Handy Guest

    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.
  8. Rally Vincent

    Rally Vincent Well-Known Member

    If the world was perfect, our Amry would be use'n Glock 17's.
  9. Handy

    Handy Guest

    If we were issued Glocks, we'd be back to carrying cond. 3.

  10. Rally Vincent

    Rally Vincent Well-Known Member

    Something wrong with condition 3?
  11. Detritus

    Detritus Well-Known Member

    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.
  12. Handy

    Handy Guest

    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.
  13. Rally Vincent

    Rally Vincent Well-Known Member

    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.
  14. Handy

    Handy Guest

    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.
  15. Rally Vincent

    Rally Vincent Well-Known Member

    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 ***.
  16. firestar

    firestar member

    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!
  17. BevrFevr

    BevrFevr Well-Known Member

    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.

  18. 444

    444 Well-Known Member

    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.
  19. Jesse H

    Jesse H Well-Known Member

    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.
  20. Croyance

    Croyance Well-Known Member

    Politics aside, there are a lot of fine handguns that would make decent military service pistols.
    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.
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page