Ruger Recall of SR9 Pistols

Status
Not open for further replies.
As of recently, it seems that our firearms manufacturers have developed a new business 'model' that seems to put the consumer in the position of ferretting out the "quirks" and "idiosyncrasies" of a new product, "beta-testing", I believe, is what it is called.

Kinda makes me nervous for those unfortunate folks who are forced to contend with this additional issue when faced with the all-too-serious task of purchasing a handgun for the purpose of SD/CCW.

It is bad enough when the prospective buyer is looking at a handgun that will serve only as a 'range toy', but when the item's purpose and performance is one that someone's life could ostensibly depend upon, I find that to be a particularly offensive and appalling practice and a sorry state of affairs to be sure.

Of course, Ruger isn't the only company doing so these days, but this is just a shameful thing.

Guess that those who are acquiring their new CC/SD handguns had better put a couple of thousand rounds downrange prior to placing any trust in their new CC/SD 'piece' and even then, that may not be enough....:fire:
 
Hey there Gun Slinger!

The ChAir Force taught me never to trust anything/anyone. Of course, I know that I'm out there on one end of anybody's Bell curve.

I constantly test my duty firearms and myself. All of my Smith revolvers have, well, quirks. --but those quirks occur at corners of the performance envelope such that I can depend on them. My Ruger arms are perhaps more reliable than my Smiths because I haven't modified them. I'd take any of my arms into a dark place.

Anyone who choose not to test themselves and their arms constantly risks becoming another sad statistic. That testing ought to be the most enjoyable part of shooting! There's nothing like "recoil therapy"!:D
 
Last edited:
About the Ruger SR9 recall:

I signed up and put my pistol in the safe. However, since I was carrying ON safe anyway, I would have been fine carrying the piece as issued--or, almost as good, I could have just carried the gun with an empty chamber. My father did that for years with an extremely trustworthy Tokarev 9mm.

I don't think this recall is a big deal for most of us, just disappointing, especially from Mr. Reliable, Bill Ruger.
 
I do agree Commander, Its not a huge deal but is rather disappointing especially for me. This is my 1st handgun and I hate to be with out it even if its just for a week. But I appreciate Ruger taking the time to fix a known issue rather than to issue a warning and say "deal with it". I do wish they would send out a free holster instead of a Magazine :), a Nice looking holster is so hard to find for this gun.
 
Don't have a dog in this fight, but even though I know that R&D for a new product is hideously expensive, that the bean counters' job is to limit those costs to an absolute minimum and that the marketing trolls' will insist on getting their hype rolling to drum up demand as far ahead of supply as possible, I'm another who resents it when a company lets them shortcut the pre-production testing in the interest of expediency.

It may well be more cost-effective for the company to fix the bugs that turn up after they're on the market than it would be to find them first, but I don't like it one bit.

IIRC, Ruger did something very similar with their first centerfire semiauto, the P-85. And with the XGI .308 carbine that never materialized.

I agree that it was and is much to Ruger's credit that they did hold-off full prodution of the P-85 until they remedied things, and that the carbine was scrapped when they discovered that it couldn't be made to work right and last at a reasonable price, and that they're going to fix the SR9s that are already out there without waiting to be legally compelled to.

Perhaps it's just cynicism from having been gulled by the marketing trolls into buying more than one new product on the strength of the media hype and reputation their employer earned with another product and getting hosed, but I'm no longer willing to pay to beta test anybody's product on my time. It ain't like I've got forever or that I haven't anything I'd enjoy doing more.
 
waiting-recalls/ I told you so!!!...

I posted remarks about the new Ruger SR9 9mmNATO pistols a long time ago and said: "Like many things(cars, PCs, software, TVs, phones, etc) it's a good bet to WAIT a year or 2 before you make a major purchase."

I read over many + reviews of the SR9 pistol but still think it's best to wait.

For any members who run out willy-nilly and dump a pocketful of cash on the latest whiz bang firearm I say; :neener:.

RS
 
I've got a 93 explorer that was recalled 6 months ago. Recalls can happen at any time, at least ruger is giving out free magazines ($50 value), you wont see many (if any) other companies giving out freebies for the added trouble of a recall.
 
So it needs a little work...

I just got back one of my Smiths from the factory, and it took about six weeks, but they replaced the frame and rebuilt the gun for me. It cost me about 3 bucks for the box to send it back, and everything else was free.

To me, it's refreshing to deal with companies that stand behind their products. I've had cars, appliances, and just about everything else from manufacturers that came with the "Georgia guarantee"... when it broke, you got to keep the pieces. Life is hell for gun manufacturers anyway with the leftists trying to ban them so they can take over, or put them out of business with lawsuits :cuss::cuss: so it's nice to see that they're at least making a good faith effort to fix problems when they discover them even if it's after the product is released for sale.

As for "waiting to buy a gun until the 2nd or 3rd variation comes out", Smith stands behind all their guns if you're the original owner, and you can send any of their guns back for a retrofit and refurbish at a pretty reasonable cost. Try that at your local car dealer and look at the bill... Apparently, Ruger is going to make that same kind of good faith effort to make sure their products have a good reputation.

I've shot a couple of hundred rounds through my SR-9 without a hitch... and wouldn't have even known the thing was being recalled except for reading it here...(thanks, by the way). The gun performs remarkably well, and now I know it has ONE safety problem that's being fixed for free with a bonus... a free $35 magazine... so when it's fixed and I'm carrying it... I'll have 17 more rounds for the firefight...:neener: ... wonder if they'd send a reloader too???

WT
 
17 rounds of jack....

17 rounds of 9mmNATO hollowpoints aren't going to mean jack*&%$ if the SR9 does not work properly...
:D
 
From the tests and revues I've read here and in the magazines, functional reliability was never an issue. They all seemed to run just dandy.

The most serious gripes, IMO, had to do with wretched trigger action, mediocre (at best) accuracy compared to the older Ruger semiautos and the awkward design of the thumb safety. Again MO, but these are the things that should've (and most likely would've if the accountants and marketing trolls hadn't prevailed) been discovered and addressed before they put them out there.

Ditto the reason for the recall under discussion. If the pre-production R&D regimen and testing had been as extensive as engineers generally prefer to have them, no remedial measures would be necessary.

I understand most of the "whys", I think. It's a business, and even for Ruger the amount of capital involved in developing a new product is a much larger issue than it would be for a "Fortune 500" outfit, most of whom have assets about an order of magnitude greater.

They have stockholders who provide that money, and they didn't put it there out of altruism or the love of firearms. Not a centavo of return on that investment can appear until all costs are recovered.

They accountants job is to come up with ways to keep those costs to as little as possible, get them back fast and show as much profit as they can.

The marketing trolls are paid to sell it to you. They can't (after the debacles I mentioned previously, anyway) start putting the hype out there to drum up demand until they have a firm date for availability. The sooner they can do their thing and get the cash flowing the other way, the more pleasing they are to the Management and Accounting Gods at whose whim they tremblingly serve.

Bill Ruger was an engineer before he became a businessman. It seems to me that as the company got bigger and Mr. Ruger,sr. had more people to answer to and for, the engineering and its criteria began having less real influence.

I understand how it is, and I have to accept it. I don't have to like it.

I know that this stuff isn't limited to Ruger and that many other makers, especially the most innovative, have the same problems. And I'll stipulate that many of them don't go to anywhere near the lengths that Ruger has to make things right when they do mess-up.

I guess it's just that I've come to expect so much from Ruger over the years. I got complacent. If the Ruger name was on it, I believed that I could count on great engineering and excellent performance. I seems more disappointing somehow when they put a product on the market with shortcomings of this kind.

I love the overall approach, concepts and features in this design. It has the potential to be another landmark for Ruger, IMO. But I'm waiting until they get it at least as good as it should've been before I'll buy one.
 
An answer to Outerlimit's post...

I call the 9mm, 9mmNATO to avoid any mistakes/conflicts with other common 9mm loads; 9mmLargo, 9mmP, 9mm short/9x18mm, etc.

I read a few gun magazine articles where the term; 9mmNATO is used and I kept it. :D

RS
 
The problem with the triggers are way overblown, in fact most reviews that I have read from actual owners say the trigger is fine. The SR9 has a mag disconnect, if you try to dry fire with the mag out the, trigger will feel like crap, if you keep doing it you will damage the striker, at that point the trigger will always feel crappy.
 
I don't understand how a striker fired pistol can discharge on a drop. Even if you discount the automatic striker blocker, it is still not under spring tension until the trigger is pulled in this pistol. The striker has little mass, so just how far do you have to drop the gun to make it discharge? From orbit? Ruger says they will replace the trigger group. This presumably includes the stamped steel part that moves the blocker up to clear the striker. I sure would like more information, but I doubt the gun is unsafe- there must be some infinitesimal chance of of a drop fire. So, I'm on the list to send mine in, but until then I'll continue firing and carrying the thing.
On the other hand, could the stated problem actually be a cover-up for a more serious trigger problem? Just thinkin'... :uhoh:
 
"I don't understand how a striker fired pistol can discharge on a drop. Even if you discount the automatic striker blocker, it is still not under spring tension until the trigger is pulled in this pistol."

Not sure about Ruger but many of the striker fired pistols, like the Glock and the S&W M&P are partly cocked. If they drop and the striker is able to slip off the sear, they may fire.
 
What's the real reason for the recall

Well... new guy here. Yes I own an SR9 and I have to agree with some of you, there are too many haters in this world. I think that ruger has done a fantastic job with this model, it's worlds apart from their earlier models and like anything else they have to work out some of the kinks. I used to own a Ruger P95 which I gladly traded for my SR9 and I don't regret it. I've been reading some of the other comments in other forums and some say that for a striker firearm is very difficult and impossible for this gun to fire when dropped because of the very firing mechanism and the striker block. And then there is some rumor about a state deal that is more political than a real recall. What is the real truth, does anybody know?



Note: Have shot many hundreds of rounds through my SR9 no failures to date.:D
 
Note to Rusty

The issue with the SR-9 is a safety issue where the gun discharges if there is a round in the chamber and the safety is off and the gun is dropped. It has no cycling problems, and mine has run through almost a full ammo can of 9mm without either a misfire or a jam.

The company has guns that they have run 17,000 rounds through without so much as cleaning the gun... so it's not unreliable. It has a safety problem that is being fixed with a new trigger group.

WT
 
Sounds like a non-issue. It isn't a recomended practice to drop a loaded firearm, with safety on or off, no matter who made it. This is most likely a situation that the Ruger legal department wants resolved BEFORE some fumble fingered mouth breather drops his ready to fire SR-9 and blows off his 11th toe.
On the other hand, maybe we have found the next generation of Russian Roulette. Just drop an SR-9 muzzle up.
 
I have about 700 rounds through mine. I just don't chamber a round unless it is pointing down range. My trigger has broken in pretty well. I don't have that gritty pull like when it was new (also magazines can be loaded by hand now). I hope I don't need to put another 700 through it for the new trigger group to break it in. I can hit empty 12 ga shells lined up at 7 yards. For those having a hard time hitting targets: Try sighting it in. I have a great time shooting my SR-9. Looking forward to another magazine too. I'll miss it while it's gone. In the mean time, don't drop or throw your SR-9 down on the ground! Wait until it comes back and make sure I'm not around...
 
no way

I would never wait one or two years to buy a gun that I truly liked to own NOW. Life is a crapshoot every day. buy the damn gun, shoot it like you stole it, if the company has any reputation at all, if it breaks they will repair it. Not a hard decision to make. Waiting two years is no assurance of NO ISSUES either. the drop safety in the SR9 is something that Ruger ahadto recall but 99% of the owners would never had even known this was an issue. Hell I have two flawless kahrs, and who knows possably one them has a faulty safety mechanism that might cause it to fire if dropped PERFECTLY RIGHT. I don't intend to find out.

Lots of "what ifs" scenarios
 
Does anyone know exactly what parts are being replaced and will it effect the (already heavy) trigger pull. I can imagine them going to a NY style trigger pull of 11lbs or something.

They called me several times and left messages on my answering machine. I finally got back to them and told them I'm traveling out of the country frequently (currently in Bangalore, India), and it isn't convenient for me to mail it in right now. "So, don't call me, I'll call you." Before I send it in, I'd like to hear back from someone that got theirs back and was the trigger pull better or worse than before.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

W
  • Locked
Ruger SR9 recall
Replies
1
Views
431
ugaarguy
ugaarguy
D
  • Locked
How to tell a post-recall SR9?
Replies
3
Views
251
highorder
H
M
  • Locked
Ruger SR9 vs SR9c Trigger
Replies
6
Views
1K
kokapelli
K
mgmorden
  • Locked
Quick question about the Ruger SR9 recall
Replies
0
Views
352
mgmorden
mgmorden
R
  • Locked
Sr9 Recall
Replies
2
Views
472
SomeKid
S
Back
Top