Does anyone think the Ruger p series would have made a good choice for the Army?

[Blueduck]

Now Handy

I didn't say the Raven was sufficient I said: "Do you think it would make any significant difference in any major military confrontation if the U.S. Service pistol were a HK Mk-23 or Raven 25 auto?..."- Nope WWII, Korea, Vietnam were not won or lost by pistol choice in any significant way.

I also said: "Regardless it's clear this is not getting us anywhere, please e-mail off line or pick a local playground to meet at for further discourse on the topic"

Less time on pistols, more time on reading comprehension

 

[Tacblack]

The comment Faustulus made about Bill Ruger is true to my knowledge also. The more I look around the more I find Ruger pushes the way they want things to be on everyone else. I stopped buying any Ruger guns do to the last Mr. Rugers deslike for motorcycles and taking it upon his self to cancel insuring on any employees that had them. Than making parking for motorcycles only that just happen to be a football field farther then the farthest car had to park. The insurance was put back on all employee's after one of those little discrimination law suites started. Don't bite the hand that feeds you.

 

[Adventurer_96]

I believe the Sig 228 is the preferred and current aircrew sidearm.

Not in the USAF. It's the M9.

Regarding the M9, I'd trust my life to that pistol any day. I've only shot a Ruger once or twice, but I don't have enough experience with them to have a good opinion about the benefits of one over the other. I do know that when I toured their New England plant the marketing woman who took us on a tour mentioned that she'd love to see another pistol selection for the military so Ruger could compete.

 

[seeker_two]

The pistol Ruger put up for the trials (P85 Mk I) had a lot of problems. After all, it was the first Ruger centerfire auto ever made, & they hadn't worked out all the bugs yet. The Beretta & the SIG were the best of the choices available at that time...

Now, I'd think Rugers latest offerings (P93, P94, P95) would be great for military use---esp. the P94. I'd also think that the DAO models would be good choices d/t ease of training & use (as would Beretta's D-series pistols.) I'd be a little leery of the Glocks or XD-9's unless they had NY triggers.

But that's just me. YYMV...

 

[txcookie]

I had a 92 on my hip for a couple of deployments. I own a p89. They both are awesome. I would have been no more or less confident with the ruger

 

[sigarms228]

Holy thread resurrection LOL.

13 years almost. Maybe a record?

 

[Riphalman]

Re: Ruger

Wow! What a blast from the past! I still have my old P97 and still like it a lot. However, the world has moved on quite a bit. There are much better options these days.

 

[jrdolall]

Did we even HAVE the internet in 2003?

 

[ApacheCoTodd]

Funny that this thread should go zombie just now.

When the P85 came out and then got beat up in the sidearm trials, I really wanted one but never got around to it.

Last week, I tripped over one and couldn't not buy it.

It's been fired but is in great shape and led me to look into the legacy it has built in the past 3 decades.

Turns out, generally, nothing but praise for the durability and reliability which should be first and foremost in a military sidearm.

Mine - for me, presents much more massive than I expected and imparts a feeling of confidence in its mass and the sounds of its operation whether dry cycled or actually fired.

I grew to respect the M-9 but as we had 1911s, M-9s and a passel of Sigs and HKs to choose from - it was an easy transition.

And oh yeah - P85s have a lanyard loop!


Todd.

 

[9mmepiphany]

We are not going to carry on a discussion in a thread that started in 2003.

If you think you have something worthy of being discussed, please start another thread