GunnyUSMC
Member
I was talking about a single stack in the Security 9.
I’ve shot plenty of the LC9 and LC9s.
New Ruger Security 9 Compact
- Thread starter mgresh
- Start date
- Status
I’ve shot plenty of the LC9 and LC9s.
bannockburn
Member
- Joined
- Apr 24, 2007
- Messages
- 26,294
Didn't care for the overall size of the SR9 but love the more compact SR9c model. Pretty much felt the same way about the full size CZ P09 and the smaller P07. Tried the Security 9 but wasn't all that thrilled with it's design or how it felt in my hand. I actually find the new Security 9 Compact model to be somewhat "interesting" and will definitely check one out when I get a chance.
Last edited:
thomas15
Member
I think I'm being misunderstood, I actually think this is so interesting.
I really can't say why exactly, but it's probably because I find that things that are interesting are simply interesting by virtue of the fact that they are interesting.
I really can't say why exactly, but it's probably because I find that things that are interesting are simply interesting by virtue of the fact that they are interesting.
danez71
Member
interesting 
Good Ol' Boy
Member
Maybe I'm the only one but I think it's only natural for Ruger to come out with a compact Security 9.
"Interesting" I dont know, but a natural step yes.
That being said I've yet to handle or shoot even a standard Security 9 so I can't speak to its worthwhileness.
"Interesting" I dont know, but a natural step yes.
That being said I've yet to handle or shoot even a standard Security 9 so I can't speak to its worthwhileness.
Jeb Stuart
member
It seems they could have called all three models the LCPll. I do not see any differences in the materials used, The alloy steel receiver and the aluminum sub chassis. Has Ruger done anything to the larger pistols, Like steel inserts at the stress points? Are the rails the same material?
They could have called the three models the LCPll light weight pocket pistol, the LCPll subcompact and the LCPll Standard. Why would Ruger discontinue the well built SR9? Is it because the RAP was a money loser? Especially after Ruger lost the Military Bid or dropped out and Ruger wanted to bring more focus to the RAP and make up for lost sales? The SR9 was just too much competition for the RAP. More EDC friendly with the lighter weight and still maintaining the robust build quality, Personally I can not figure out where the logic of the LCPll series is going.
Obviously the Security 9 is going to be cheaper to manufacturer, and it is going to appeal to those that do not use these guns very often at the range. Folks that are not willing to pay more for a better quality Pistol.
I have always been a Ruger Fan, but have to say, I have no interest in the Security 9 at all. Do not care how it shoots. After owing the SR9C, I am not going down in Quality. By the way, the SR9c does take the 17 rd. magazine, basically turning it into a full size Pistol
And if I am not mistaken, the Ruger Carbine also takes SR9 mags.
So the deal is. If you want a Tough, high Quality pistol, steel chassis, capable of Plus P etc. You have now have one choice now. The heavy RAP. The other choice is the Budget friendly LCPll series. (Security9).
They could have called the three models the LCPll light weight pocket pistol, the LCPll subcompact and the LCPll Standard. Why would Ruger discontinue the well built SR9? Is it because the RAP was a money loser? Especially after Ruger lost the Military Bid or dropped out and Ruger wanted to bring more focus to the RAP and make up for lost sales? The SR9 was just too much competition for the RAP. More EDC friendly with the lighter weight and still maintaining the robust build quality, Personally I can not figure out where the logic of the LCPll series is going.
Obviously the Security 9 is going to be cheaper to manufacturer, and it is going to appeal to those that do not use these guns very often at the range. Folks that are not willing to pay more for a better quality Pistol.
I have always been a Ruger Fan, but have to say, I have no interest in the Security 9 at all. Do not care how it shoots. After owing the SR9C, I am not going down in Quality. By the way, the SR9c does take the 17 rd. magazine, basically turning it into a full size Pistol
And if I am not mistaken, the Ruger Carbine also takes SR9 mags.
So the deal is. If you want a Tough, high Quality pistol, steel chassis, capable of Plus P etc. You have now have one choice now. The heavy RAP. The other choice is the Budget friendly LCPll series. (Security9).
Last edited:
Jeb Stuart
member
Yep, makes it easy for the general population of new gun owners.
Customer: Yes, I would like a Ruger semi-automactic.
Clerk: As he pulls out three guns that all are the same other than size. Sure, we have small, medium and large. And also a heavy duty Pistol. A certain simplicity to the buying process. And yes, they will sell millions.
It's a logical continuation of the Security line. For those wanting a sub $300 gun with a fantastic ironclad non-warranty warranty that will basically cover the gun forever, it's tough to beat the Ruger.
We have to keep in mind, the average gun buyer is not a Highroad poster nor a heavy volume shooter. Full disclosure, I have never worn a gun out. I have owned dozens and dozens of guns over the last 10 years I have been in the hobby. I simply can't afford the time nor the money to kill a gun by round count. I've changed out a couple of recoil springs.
My guess, and this is just a guess, the percentage of gun owners who wear out a gun to full replacement is in the single digit percentile. I would even go on to say that the people who shoot a gun enough to even wear out a spring is in the low teens. I think a large portion of gun buyers are a buy it, shoot it once, and stick it in a drawer type or an armchair commando who has to buy the "most hardcore, reliable, guy on YouTube rubbed it full of mud so that's what I carry" type who, guess what...buys it, shoots it once, and sticks it in a safe before repeating. Think about how many guns there are in the US. We aren't buying them all because we are wearing them out
I have no dog in the Security 9 fight. I don't own one. I wouldn't mind one, but I'm pretty well served by a 320. I hope that I'm done chasing the 9mm dragon for a bit and have invested in mags, grip frames, and holsters for the SIG. I just think that Ruger knows average guy buyer wants reliable and affordable.
Anyway, I digress and apologize. This version of the gun isn't for me. I like full size (or at least compact) frames or slim single stacks. The Glock 26 wasn't for me, and I don't see any similar sized pistol a good fit for my needs. I'll stick with my cheap little EC9S when I have to leave the SIG at home.
I do like the partially cocked hammer design of the LCPII. Its certainly not one to toss loose in the pocket, but it shoots nice. I would guess the Security shoots pretty well too.
We have to keep in mind, the average gun buyer is not a Highroad poster nor a heavy volume shooter. Full disclosure, I have never worn a gun out. I have owned dozens and dozens of guns over the last 10 years I have been in the hobby. I simply can't afford the time nor the money to kill a gun by round count. I've changed out a couple of recoil springs.
My guess, and this is just a guess, the percentage of gun owners who wear out a gun to full replacement is in the single digit percentile. I would even go on to say that the people who shoot a gun enough to even wear out a spring is in the low teens. I think a large portion of gun buyers are a buy it, shoot it once, and stick it in a drawer type or an armchair commando who has to buy the "most hardcore, reliable, guy on YouTube rubbed it full of mud so that's what I carry" type who, guess what...buys it, shoots it once, and sticks it in a safe before repeating. Think about how many guns there are in the US. We aren't buying them all because we are wearing them out
I have no dog in the Security 9 fight. I don't own one. I wouldn't mind one, but I'm pretty well served by a 320. I hope that I'm done chasing the 9mm dragon for a bit and have invested in mags, grip frames, and holsters for the SIG. I just think that Ruger knows average guy buyer wants reliable and affordable.
Anyway, I digress and apologize. This version of the gun isn't for me. I like full size (or at least compact) frames or slim single stacks. The Glock 26 wasn't for me, and I don't see any similar sized pistol a good fit for my needs. I'll stick with my cheap little EC9S when I have to leave the SIG at home.
I do like the partially cocked hammer design of the LCPII. Its certainly not one to toss loose in the pocket, but it shoots nice. I would guess the Security shoots pretty well too.
Buzznrose
Member
? LOL!
Buzznrose
Member
IMO the main draw for this firearm is no different than the folks who own a Glock 17/19 - 26 combo (like me). Sometimes, I like carrying the G26 and having a G17 round in the car I can use as a second magazine...
GunnyUSMC
Member
Isn't that what Glock did? It worked for them, why not Ruger?
Jeb Stuart
member
I would think it is fair to say they are to some extent copying Glock. Just selling Budget guns. And I think it will work for them. I just feel Ruger has gone down a different path.
Isn't the Security9 basically a down graded Glock 19 style?
Last edited:
Zendude
Member
The new Ruger adds a good choice in the compact double stack market that has the German guns on the high price end and Taurus on the low price end. (S&W does not hav an entry in this segment since the M&P compacts all have long 15 round grip frames)
I was a little surprised they came out with this compact 9 before a Security .380, 40, or 45, all of which Ruger has trademarked. Although the 10 round double stack seems to be a popular segment right now.
I don't understand why my posting about and bringing up a new model brought such reactions. I get that this gun is not good enough for some. No big deal. Move on. I'm in the category of probably not going to wear out a gun. If I do, my Ruger will be fixed or replaced by them. I have an interest in both new Rugers and the Security line.
I too think they will sell a ton of these and the Security 9 has been out for over a year and a half, and they aren't all falling apart...
I don't understand why my posting about and bringing up a new model brought such reactions. I get that this gun is not good enough for some. No big deal. Move on. I'm in the category of probably not going to wear out a gun. If I do, my Ruger will be fixed or replaced by them. I have an interest in both new Rugers and the Security line.
I too think they will sell a ton of these and the Security 9 has been out for over a year and a half, and they aren't all falling apart...
TomJ
Contributing Member
I have 2 guns comparable to this Ruger, a HK VP9SK and a FNS 9C. I like the versatility they offer. If I need something concealable to carry OWB, I use the 10 or 12 round magazines. I have the option of using the full size magazines if I want the additional capacity. If I'm wearing loose pants such as cargo pants, I can pocket carry them. Guns this size make for great all purpose guns. In regards to the negative reactions by some, chalk it up to human nature. Your post was no different than hundreds of others on this forum. There are unfortunately people who aren't happy unless they're bickering with someone or stirring things up. That's what the ignore feature on this forum is for.
Jeb Stuart
member
Just curious then, Why did you even post if you do not want reply's or opinion? There are a lot of long time Ruger fans that do have opinions and many disappointed that the way Ruger is going and yes, many fans, myself included have moved on. We expected more from Ruger. That said, I will keep my SR9C and be darned happy, I bought one of the last quality EDC compact guns Ruger made. I do wish Ruger a lot of continued success. I think those that have bought the Security models will have a very nice gun for protection.
Last edited:
Trey Veston
Member
I did a three gun comparison last Fall at my range just for fun since I happen to have the three pistols together and a bunch of ammo. The Ruger EC9S was my dad's.
The Ruger had a decent trigger and ergos, but it just lacked refinement and felt cheap compared to the XDS and even the Taurus. Of course, not everyone notices or is capable of noticing subtle differences in finish quality and machining. They have no idea what others are talking about when they point out Ruger's lack of refinement and cheap feel. That's fine. There is a reason the Ruger semi-autos are cheaper.
The Ruger had a decent trigger and ergos, but it just lacked refinement and felt cheap compared to the XDS and even the Taurus. Of course, not everyone notices or is capable of noticing subtle differences in finish quality and machining. They have no idea what others are talking about when they point out Ruger's lack of refinement and cheap feel. That's fine. There is a reason the Ruger semi-autos are cheaper.
I didn't say I didn't want replies and opinions. I welcome them all. I have no problem with any replies about the gun or Ruger. A reply about why the post and gun can't possibly be interesting is not a reply about the subject. That's what I was referring to for moving on. As another poster mentioned above, some just aren't happy unless they are bickering and flaming and making sure you know they are better than you. It's the way of forums and I guess I shouldn't have brought up a reaction to it.
gc70
Member
When I first got interested in guns people would get agitated over a new breed of "tin-can" guns made with aluminum frames. Such guns were obviously cheap trash that would not hold up to extensive use.
Later, aluminum frames were proven and people focused on new-fangled "plastic" guns made with polymer frames. Yes, such guns were also obviously cheap trash that would not hold up to extensive use.
Even later, polymer frames were accepted and people focused on molded "powdered metal" gun parts or MIM. And again, such guns were also obviously cheap trash that would not hold up to extensive use.
Gun makers have a history of using new materials and processes to make guns at reasonable prices. Of course, we all know that such guns are obviously cheap trash that will not hold up to extensive use.
Later, aluminum frames were proven and people focused on new-fangled "plastic" guns made with polymer frames. Yes, such guns were also obviously cheap trash that would not hold up to extensive use.
Even later, polymer frames were accepted and people focused on molded "powdered metal" gun parts or MIM. And again, such guns were also obviously cheap trash that would not hold up to extensive use.
Gun makers have a history of using new materials and processes to make guns at reasonable prices. Of course, we all know that such guns are obviously cheap trash that will not hold up to extensive use.
thomas15
Member
Interesting statement. Maybe I'm having visions in my head but you seem to imply that some posters here in this thread are mocking these Ruger pistols as cheap hardware but after a review of this interesting thread I really don't see that.
Trey Veston
Member
I totally implied that Ruger semi-autos are cheaper quality compared to other firearms...
gc70
Member
Look a few posts up on this page:
In case anyone else fails to recognize sarcasm, a lot of people deride new products because they are somewhat different, and particularly those that are less expensive. Historically, such criticism has often proven to be baseless.
USBP379
Member
- Joined
- Dec 27, 2005
- Messages
- 709
Ruger has all but abandoned the "service auto" category. It is only a matter of time before production of the American pistol is stopped. The American was going to be Ruger's "Glock killer" and their entry into the modern striker market. The American hasn't caught on for a number of reasons.
Since the American didn't pan out like Ruger had hoped, it only makes sense they would go back toward the budget market.
Since the American didn't pan out like Ruger had hoped, it only makes sense they would go back toward the budget market.
- Status
