Glock 22 Gen 3...vs...Ruger SR40

[JTQ]

Both are very good companies that stand behind their products. I'd pick the one you like the best.

I think the Glock kabooms are over stated. I think they happen. I think they are most common with the .40 S&W models. I also think they happen when the shooters are running rounds through the gun they shouldn't be running through the gun.

On the other hand, the reason we have the Gen 4 family of Glocks is because of problems with the previous generation of .40 S&W Glocks (G22 primarily). The Gen 4 design was to fix problems with the G22 with a light attached.

 

[sig228]

Both are great guns

Not sure about the Ruger, but that's an incredible price on the Glock. Are you getting an LEO / military discount or is that the everyday price?

If you are the kind of guy who likes to take apart your gun and change out the internals, or add things on, go for the Glock due to the sheer amount of aftermarket parts and accessories.

If not, both are great guns and either will serve you well.

 

[45_auto]

I still don't see that is a "reason" why a STANDARD Glock should cost more.

It's called "supply and demand".

Glocks are perceived by the majority of buyers as being a superior product, therefore they are able to "demand" a higher price.

Those who don't see things that way are free to buy the Ruger for less.

Same reason you'll pay $499 for a new Glock 22 at Bud's versus $411 for a new SR490.

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_49_75/products_id/69980

http://www.budsgunshop.com/catalog/product_info.php/cPath/21_43/products_id/73213

 

[mgmorden]

The same reason that the vast majority of shooters with a serious interest in how well they shoot don't choose Rugers. Look at the results of ANY competitive service-caliber handgun competition and count the number of Rugers. It won't take you long.

That tracks almost exclusively to the fact that Ruger has no long slide version of the SR series. If you look at the Glocks used in competition it's 90% dominated by the Glock 34. I personally shoot an M&P 9L but if Ruger made a 5" version of the SR9 that's what I would be shooting - and I'd wager a fairly decent number of other people would be too.

That said though, those long barrel guns so commonly found in competition aren't really all that common for duty/carry. The Ruger is a perfectly good choice for that.

 

[easyg]

I would choose the one that fits your grip better.

Not everyone is a fan of the Glock grip angle.

 

[Warrior1]

what is that reason?

I am sure some people say that about bose speakers as well.

Not saying there isn't a valid reason, but i own a glock 19 and an sr9c, and i've yet to find a reason why they glock should cost more...

ruger....

 

[justice06rr]

Well the OP didn't mention anything about competition.
Glock has been around for much longer than the SR series.
Glock SPONSORS competitors
Glock made guns SPECIFICALLY for competition (G34, G35)
I still don't see that is a "reason" why a STANDARD Glock should cost more.

+1

Its all in the name. Glock is a very popular brand so its "supposed" to cost more.
Don't fall for that. Pick the gun you want, not because others say its "better". The Ruger SR series are excellent pistols.

I have owned a G19 Gen3 and G23 Gen2. Sold them both. Now I own a SR9c, which is saying something. I've also done IDPA and 3Gun with my Glocks. Nothing special about them. They shoot just fine, but so will the Ruger.

With Ruger you get an American made product that is backed with a great service and warranty.

I'd pick Glock only because Ruger insists on putting in manual firng inhibitor that requires separate motion from pulling the trigger to engable fire.

Glock also has a finish that resists rust better.

The SR series comes in the stainless (or duotone) slide whic will hold up better than Glock's tenifer finish.

Firing inhibitor... do you mean Magazine disconnect, or thumb safety? those can be good features.

 

[JDR]

Seriously, I would not buy another used .40 that I couldn't try out first. I really think that the .45 ACP equivalents of these guns are better than the .40s

 

[jjones45]

Ruger has no warranty but they stand behind their products. I know people who were the second or third owner of ruger firearms and ruger took care of their problems with no hassle. You would be hard pressed to find another manufacturer who does this. With that said I own a glock 23 and ruger sr45 and I love both. The ruger definitely has better ergos(gen3 vs sr40) and in my hands is more accurate. Sadly I shoot all my handguns more accurately than my glock although I don't shoot it bad. The stock rear sight just plain sucks on glocks(personal opinion) but this can easily be remedied with a quick swap. My glock has now become my least favorite striker gun I own but for some reason I don't won't to part with it. Probably because it's been dead reliable through thousands of rounds and conditions. I know this is cliché but it's gonna come down to personal preference as both are great options. So my vote would have to go glock, I mean ruger, no definitely a glock, ok ruger, you get my point.

 

[Kuyong_Chuin]

Ruger for several reasons. 1st it is a US company not a over seas company that move a factory over here. 2nd The has an unsupported barrel mean ether buying an after market barrel or not firing reloads in the gun safely. 3rd The Glock has unconventional rifling means plated or jacketed ammo only no lead. 4th You can use that extra $50 for more ammo instead of paying more for a gun that if you are going to shoot reloads in that you are going to have spend another $120+ on a new barrel.

 

[bannockburn]

Have tried both and the Ruger SR9c is a better fit ergonomically for me than the Glock.