Glock 26 vs. Ruger SR9c vs. S&W M&P9c

Status
Not open for further replies.
C

chuck pullen

Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2003
Messages
115
Location
huntsville ala
I am looking to buy a sub-compact (for lack of a better term) 9mm for IWB carry and have so far narrowed my choice down to these three pistols. I own a full size version of each, so I'm familiar with and like each platform. Each has its pros. Here is how I size them up so far:

Glock 26-smallest of the three in every dimension. Glock reliability. Accessories abound. Not the best-looking of the bunch, but I like the way Glocks look. Again, there's that Glock reliability.

Ruger SR9c-largest in every dimension. Questions about barrel peening and lousy trigger due to full size SR9 issues on some guns. My full size has been fine but the trigger does need work. The biggest positives are a great-feeling grip and this, in my opinion, is the best looking of the three.

S&W M&P9c-this one splits the difference between the Glock and the Ruger size-wise in virtually every dimension. Plus, it's a Smith and I've always had VERY good luck with all my Smith and Wessons. Plus their customer service is second to none. The changeable backstraps are a plus. This is the capacity champ, w/ 12 rounds standard. Pretty cool looking too.

The prices on these here are pretty equal. I like them all, but I'm really interested in everyone else's experiences with any of these or just your thoughts. Let me know what you think.
 
I've been exceedingly happy with my M&P 45c, the crimson trace attachment is pretty awesome as well.
 
S&W 9c. Great ergonomics...great gun.
Glock. Terrible ergonomics...great gun.
SR9c. Good enough ergonomics...untested by time.
 
There just ain't nothing as durable or reliable as the Glock 26 and 19 as far as I am concerned. Anything else is just a untested imitation.
 
Ruger SR9c-largest in every dimension.
Click to expand...

Not really. It's the thinnest of the three and thickness is a big part of concealability.

(Don't believe the measurements on websites spec pages. They sometimes have funny ways of measuring. They measure the Ruger across the safety which is the widest point of the gun. But the rest of the gun is notably thinner.)
 
http://www.ghostinc.com/c=FeFs5KRFEdNVywxj1PkM5f7MT/

These guys seem to think that the Ruger is the "heir apparent" to the Glock. I find that interesting. That said, if the G26 fits your hand that would be my vote. The tennifer finish is better than the melonite from my personal experience. The G26 will be easier to work on and has more aftermarket support.

I have never shot the Ruger so I have no opinion.
 
M&P9c is a great little gun. Nothing wrong with the 26, but I chose the 9c.
 
The Glock 26 is practically a modern classic when it comes to sub-compact autos.
It has a well proven track record....unlike the other two contenders.

Plus there are tons of holsters and accessories easily available for the Glock.
 
I've got a 27, it is, alongside my FNP-9M, my favorite gun.

I will always take Glock when it comes to subcompacts. That 'un-ergonomic' grip socks itself into a man's hand perfectly, and it shoots better than any other size of Glock, it has a great trigger, and is easy to work on. And the finish is unbeatable, except for looks.
 
Glock 26. For some reason the subcompact Glocks fit my hand great. Super reliable and in the odd case something does break, the replacement parts is usually less than $10 and if you can assemble a toy for your kids you can work on a Glock.
 
19-3Ben:

I've noticed that as well. Do you know the grip width, not counting the safety levers ?
Click to expand...

According to gunblast, it's .92 across the slide (grip would be approx the same.)
 
Agreed on the M&P.

Smooth. Feels natural. Extremely reliable. Super accurate. Unusually low recoil for some reason.
 
19-3Ben is correct. I held three compact guns yesterday morning: the M&P9, the XD9sc and SR9c. The SR9c has the thinnest slide. The frame is just slightly thicker than the slide, so the 1.2" width is across the safety tabs. Even at that, it is thinner than the M&P across the frame. The SR9c is almost exactly the same OAL as the M&P9. The heighth of the M&P and SR9c are almost equal. I didn't put the extended mags in to compare them. The XD9sc is slightly shorter OAL, IIRC, but width is greater than M&P and SR9c. I'm not a Glock man so didn't even look at the -26.

IMHO, the SR9c trigger is pretty nice. It feels a bit heavy, but it breaks cleanly. I didn't feel any grit as has been reported in the full-size SR9 trigger. They got this fixed, finally. The XD trigger also breaks clean, and is a little lighter. I think the M&P has a "smooshy" trigger and just don't care for it that much.

Q
 
I have many different brands of handguns in my safe , I count on only one for my protection and that of the people in my life . When it absolutely has to go bang everytime you pull the trigger...... count on a GLOCK .
 
Glock 9mm's are unbeatable, if you're willing to master the operating characteristics and can manage the ergonomics. I've handled the m&p and they feel, and look, sweet. That said, I wasnt impressed with the trigger.
It just wasn't built like a glock (block:rolleyes:).
I don't have any experiane with the Ruger. My Ruger products are all based on old tech that's been refined (gp100, 581 mini14, p90). A plastic ruger just seems odd to me, though it seems the growing pains have been worked out. Again, not built like a glock.

I find it easy to bet my bacon on a glock. I don't say that for many autos, especialy compact ones.
 
Wow am I tired of the "Glocks are time proven and nothing else is so its better" blah , blah, blah. Smith revolvers, 1911s, etc....have been around a lot longer. How did you guys ever pick up a Glock when it was "unproven"?? I WOULD wait a year or so to see how the Rugers shake out but the M&Ps and Glocks are just fine. Pick your preference on the two. They are too similar to knock one over the other. The M&P fits my hand better and I shoot it better than the Glock and I have "time tested" mine with over 5000 rounds and it works just fine. I wouldn't feel the least bit bad if I had to carry a G26 either.
 
It's nice to hear that the SR9C has a decent trigger, meaning that Ruger has responded to customer complaints about the lousy SR9 trigger (at least mine was). I traded my SR9 because I couldn't stand the trigger. I'm going to have to take a look at the compact model at the gun show tomorrow....
 
If you want an actual comparison, try shooting the three guns (wonder why SA XD was left out) using the same ammunition/multiple targets/staging in both slow aimed and rapid/multiple shots.

We have done several full size/compact/subcompact comparison shootings at different ranges. I do like the ergonomics/grip of M&P better, but usually get the fastest time, most accurate/smallest groups out of Glocks.

Maybe you can round up the guns from different shooters and arrange a comparison shoot.

Disclaimer: I used pearce grip extensions for 3 finger grip on G26. YMMV
 
I know it wasn't one of your listed choices, but you should consider the Springfield XDsc or XDM3.8. I would definately put it ahead of the Ruger, and on par with the Glock and S&W. I have 1000rnds through mine without a single hiccup, and accurate. My friends SR9 while a good quality firearm seemed to have excessive recoil for a 9mm, and left a little to be desired in the accuracy department.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

G
  • Locked
Glock, Ruger, or S&W?
2 3 4
Replies
85
Views
4K
Sam1911
S
C
  • Locked
  • Poll
M&P9 vs M&P9C vs Glock 26
2 3
Replies
50
Views
3K
Skylerbone
Skylerbone
G
  • Locked
Do Compact Guns have a short life expectancy?
Replies
22
Views
2K
Yarddog
Yarddog
A
  • Locked
M&P9c or Glock 26 with a better price on the M&P?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sheephearder
S
M
  • Locked
Glock 26 vs Ruger SR9c (w/pics)
2
Replies
32
Views
4K
JR47
J
Back
Top