P. Plainsman
Member
... in the cover article of the new issue of Guns. And it ain't pretty!
Say what you will about Mas, he's one of the few big gunslick writers who is willing to talk dirt in frank terms about a major company's new gun if it doesn't meet expectations. That's what happens here.
He did like several things about the SR9: its short trigger reach, ambidextrous design, low bore axis, clever reversible grip frame insert.
The Problems: 1. mag release button would "stick badly" in the release position, preventing the fresh mag from seating properly. This (due to the lawyer-loving mag disconnector safety) would render the gun totally nonfunctional.
2. Next, the trigger "sucked," with heavy creep and drag through the whole pull. "An integral trigger stop would really improve the SR9's shooting characteristics."
3. Like virtually every other SR9 reviewer (and me, when I briefly test-fired one), Mas found the manual safety to be poorly placed; it's really small and you can't easily manipulate it with the firing-hand thumb.
4. Finally, the SR9's accuracy was poor, with most loads not even managing to get "inside the generous accuracy standard of 4 inches (at 25 yards) for service pistols." A few did better. But even of the 'good' loads, only one grouped under 3" at 25 yds. This was, no surprise, Black Hills's XTP-tipped 124 gr JHP+P load -- an excellent, accurate favorite of mine. 2.70" at 25. (Personally, I didn't find the SR9's accuracy problematic when I tried it -- not a match for my CZs, but OK -- but I only fired it offhand to about 15 yards.)
Even with the (relatively) more accurate loads, Mas reported "occasional 5-inch groups with unexplained called flyers," even when the pistol was shot by "match-winning shooters on my test team."
That's a seriously negative review, and it's doubly notable to read it in one of the major gun mags.
Say what you will about Mas, he's one of the few big gunslick writers who is willing to talk dirt in frank terms about a major company's new gun if it doesn't meet expectations. That's what happens here.
He did like several things about the SR9: its short trigger reach, ambidextrous design, low bore axis, clever reversible grip frame insert.
The Problems: 1. mag release button would "stick badly" in the release position, preventing the fresh mag from seating properly. This (due to the lawyer-loving mag disconnector safety) would render the gun totally nonfunctional.
2. Next, the trigger "sucked," with heavy creep and drag through the whole pull. "An integral trigger stop would really improve the SR9's shooting characteristics."
3. Like virtually every other SR9 reviewer (and me, when I briefly test-fired one), Mas found the manual safety to be poorly placed; it's really small and you can't easily manipulate it with the firing-hand thumb.
4. Finally, the SR9's accuracy was poor, with most loads not even managing to get "inside the generous accuracy standard of 4 inches (at 25 yards) for service pistols." A few did better. But even of the 'good' loads, only one grouped under 3" at 25 yds. This was, no surprise, Black Hills's XTP-tipped 124 gr JHP+P load -- an excellent, accurate favorite of mine. 2.70" at 25. (Personally, I didn't find the SR9's accuracy problematic when I tried it -- not a match for my CZs, but OK -- but I only fired it offhand to about 15 yards.)
Even with the (relatively) more accurate loads, Mas reported "occasional 5-inch groups with unexplained called flyers," even when the pistol was shot by "match-winning shooters on my test team."
That's a seriously negative review, and it's doubly notable to read it in one of the major gun mags.
Lets see if I got this right, you read Ayoob's scribble and THEN you went out and BOUGHT ONE ANYWAY!