I'm just thinking...

Status
Not open for further replies.

TarDevil

Member
Joined
Dec 29, 2009
Messages
2,681
Location
NC Coast
If I had a complaint about Ruger, it's the fluidity of their product line. It's like, they can't come out with something new without discontinuing something I like. My SR9c is my favorite semi-auto and it will stay in my possession. I also love the similar controls to my EDC, LC9s. I've shot them both a lot and trust them.

But...

S&W continues to add to it's M&P product line, all are similar in handling and they've got something in almost every caliber. The Shield Plus is within a smidge of the Max 9 dimensions and could easily replace my LC9. I'm really tempted.

I diunno. Just thinking out loud.
 
Generally, manufacturers discontinue guns when sales are disappointing. There are exceptions but that's the jest of it.
 
Generally, manufacturers discontinue guns when sales are disappointing. There are exceptions but that's the jest of it.
Sure, I understand that much of business. My feeling is, using the SR series as an example, it never was developed to maintain and expand sales. A pro model, for example (similar to the LC and RAP series) without the LCI, mag and thumb safety, would have silenced a large crowd who otherwise liked the gun.
Ruger threw it's hat in the ring for the MHS program with the RAP and I think it had to toss out the SR series to justify that expense. Maybe. Who really knows?
 
Last edited:
It's been around a long time, though.
I wish I been with .45 ACP longer. Was probably traumatized when my brother put a .45 light Glock in my hands at 14yo! And never really liked the .45 until a last year. Now I get to use all the sayings!

45 because they don’t make a 46
2 world worlds
45 ACP has one drop knock down

anymore I’m missing?
 
TarDevil
Ruger was threw it's hat in the ring for the MHS program with the RAP and I think it had to toss out the SR series to justify that expense. Maybe. Who really knows?

That and maybe the SR Series cost too much money to build. Compare it with the Security Nine and you can see the SR is a much nicer design and has a higher level build quality to it. Then your throw in the Ruger American Pistol Series and the SR Series becomes the odd man out in an already crowded semi-auto market.
 
The American was initially meant to compete for the Army contract to replace the M92, though Ruger dropped out early because they wouldn't agree to the Army's demand that the design and production contracts be seperate- thus they could theoretically have bought the Ruger technical data package and handed it to another company to produce. Eventually, of course, SIG won the competition with the P320.
I was just starting to warm to the SR and dont care for either the RAP or Sec.9. The 9 has one of the worst triggers Ive shot in a long time.
 
That and maybe the SR Series cost too much money to build.
I was just starting to warm to the SR and dont care for either the RAP or Sec.9.
Certainly, compared to the Security 9. But, that's ok with me. I'll pay for a good pistol. Refining and improving the SR's was preferable to me than where they went. Right now, Ruger doesn't have a pistol I want at any price.
Revolvers, that's another story
 
If I had a complaint about Ruger, it's the fluidity of their product line. It's like, they can't come out with something new without discontinuing something I like. My SR9c is my favorite semi-auto and it will stay in my possession. I also love the similar controls to my EDC, LC9s. I've shot them both a lot and trust them.
I agree. The only polymer handguns I now own are Ruger, one is a 1st gen LC9 and the other a SR40c. The LC9 is, meh, okay, but I really like the SR40c, an excellent compact and great shooter, never had a failure with it.
That and maybe the SR Series cost too much money to build. Compare it with the Security Nine and you can see the SR is a much nicer design and has a higher level build quality to it. Then your throw in the Ruger American Pistol Series and the SR Series becomes the odd man out in an already crowded semi-auto market.
But why not keep the nicer one in the offering? They've already got the machine tooling for it, and how hard is it to injection mold a frame nowadays? That said, I've thrown my lot in with 1911's, and will eventually sell the three polymer guns I have left, all Rugers. Not a slap at Ruger, they make a very fine product, IMO; the SR1911 I have of theirs is primo.
 
bangswitch

I remember seeing the Security Nine for the first time and thinking they're going to have to do a lot better if they want to replace the SR9 with this. Haven't been all that impressed with the RAP either. Just doesn't feel as refined and well engineered as other, more established polymer pistols. So it probably came down to crunching the numbers and the SR had to go.
 
Last edited:
CZ Dropped the 97 …. sad, glade I have one waiting for me!!!
Yes and no. They still make them for CA. Just like Glock still makes Gen 3's for CA.
You're right, the 97B is a great gun....but sales were disappointing so it was semi-discontinued.

The SR series needed very little improvement. About the only thing Ruger could’ve done to improve it would be to modify the bottom rail and offer better sights/optics options.

The SR9 was recalled and required a retrofit to make it safe.
 
Last edited:
Yes and no. They still make them for CA. Just like Glock still makes Gen 3's for CA.
You're right, the 97B is a great gun....but sales were disappointing so it was semi-discontinued.
well that’s good news. Maybe it’s just a pause. I’m in Washington, and I could see CZ sending 97B’s here, we got the new ten round thing now.
 
That is a problem with being a gun enthusiast as opposed to someone who just buys guns.

Enthusiasts see virtues of unpopular designs or cartridges. Normies only see purchase price and factory ammo availability.

To an enthusiast, interest rises exponentially when something becomes discontinued. For me at least, items no longer in production are much more interesting since you can’t take the easy way and just go to a store and buy one.

In the case of the Ruger SR series, it truly was a step backwards for the customer but probably a giant leap forward for the manufacturer and their shareholders.
 
I wish I been with .45 ACP longer. Was probably traumatized when my brother put a .45 light Glock in my hands at 14yo! And never really liked the .45 until a last year. Now I get to use all the sayings!

45 because they don’t make a 46
2 world worlds
45 ACP has one drop knock down

anymore I’m missing?
71345F26-4EE5-4C3B-9694-ED65E4D3E693_1_105_c.jpeg
 
If I had a complaint about Ruger, it's the fluidity of their product line.

But...

S&W continues to add to it's M&P product line, all are similar in handling and they've got something in almost every caliber. The Shield Plus is within a smidge of the Max 9 dimensions and could easily replace my LC9. I'm really tempted.

I diunno. Just thinking out loud.
2 different business approaches. The Ruger approach keeps the MSRP lower.
 
2 different business approaches. The Ruger approach keeps the MSRP lower.
Not sure I'm following your logic. I would think new tooling and production lines (Ruger) adds more cost than expanding a proven series of pistols (S&W).
 
Ruger is a business. If they drop a product, it is probably because it isn't selling as good as they want, or it IS selling and they intend to replace it with a similar better (but usually more expensive) product.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top