I think that calling another writer a liar while praising Ayoob for being objective is a bit of a stretch. 200 yard hits are possible, but they don't mean a thing. Any handgun can hit out to 200 yards from the offhand, up to and including a .22. If someone claims they can do it at will, well, then we start drifting into fish story territory. I am not familiar with the article your referencing, but who's to say that he didn't rattle off 12,000 rounds with no problem? It's not like that hasn't been done before (cough... Glock torture tests... cough). To back this up, I qoute Chuck Taylor from 1995 for a series he evidently wrote for Combat Handguns:
And now, the fall of 1995, after having fired a total of 100.000 rounds of virtually all kinds of ammunition...
Nothing has changed! The gun looks the same, feels the same, functions the same as it did before. I've done everything within reason to this gun. I've carried it all over the world, quite literally in every environmental condition known to man-- the steaming jungles of Latin America, the windblown deserts of the southwestern U.S., the 40-below zero tundra of Alaska in the winter.
And it worked-- every time. In fact, since I discovered that loading 15, rather than the rated 17, rounds into the magazine prevented the follower spring from softening, I haven't had a single malfunction. Both magazines used in this last 25.000 portion of my test remain strong and completely serviceable. And, by way of confirmation, I replaced the old springs in the magazines that failed during the test with new ones from Glock, and they, too, function perfectly.
(
http://membres.lycos.fr/shooter/glock/glock4.html)
Denali, I am going to be blunt and just say that your comments smack of someone who just plain doesn't like Ruger and of someone who is taking a little bit of joy in bringing them down. I am not criticizing you, as you have the right to your opinions, but your bias is showing just as much as the writer you claim was lying.
Storm, that Ruger made a change after 15,000 pistols does not indicate that everyone was having a problem, though it certainly indicates that improvements were needed. Jeff Quinn of Gunblast.com had a pistol in the #3500 range, and he didn't report a problem. Now, does that mean he had it and didn't report it? I don't know, but I doubt it. There have been ample examples of positive reviews, and I feel certain that many of those came from that initial lot of 15,000.
Now, with that being said, it sucks your isn't working right. I can see your point about wanting a gun that works. In principle, I can agree with you. Realistically, nine bucks just isn't enough to get my hackles up, but thats just me. Hopefully, this is the only glitch that the SR9 has, because from handling one, it seems like an exceptionally nice pistol.
I would also mention that while Ayoob told the truth, but he didn't not endorse the gun. In fact, in his closing sentence he says "As it is, in its early incarnation, it's a reliable, good-pointing pistol well worth its price tag" (GUNS, P.49) He flat out said that with some relatively minor changes, it would be a "favorite". Mas is to be praised for writing an objective article. Some of his opinions are subjective (checkering the backstrap, redesigning the safety, which I actually sort of liked, or at least didn't dislike), but thats OK. A review is just that: a review.
), semi auto pistol like the DAK/SIG P-226/9 or the HK P-2000 LEM.
