Just put 200 rounds through a Ruger SR9 someone loaned me. It was reliable, with absolutely no malfunctions. The slide cycled smoothly, although there are some sharp edges on the gun when you go to cycle it. I don't find the grip very comfortable. It is thin side-to-side and the hump insert on the back made it even more uncomfortable to grip. (I am not a 1911 guy, so this may be more familiar to other shooters) I think I would have liked the flat insert better, but it wasn't my gun, so..
The slide release and safety is easy to manipulate and had no sharp edges. The safety has a positive click when moved, and is easy to reach with the thumb. The magazine release button on this one felt fairly stiff to operate, but it is ambidextrous if you want that.
Two things I felt were unnecessary are the loaded chamber indicator, and the uncovered "striker??" at the rear of the slide. I don't really see why you wouldn't cover this area up to keep dirt etc from getting in it.
Overall the gun felt very lightweight to me, even though on paper it weighs more than the GLOCKS I usually shoot. The frame seemed to be less substantial, I suppose. The trigger felt a little rough/gritty, and a bit heavier than a GLOCK's. I did notice some trigger slap-back after firing strings while riding the trigger to reset, the way you would with a GLOCK. The Ruger trigger seemed to have a fairly quick reset.
I wouldn't really want to judge the accuracy based on only 200 rounds fired, since I am not use to the trigger. The Ruger definitely has acceptable combat accuracy, but the groups I did fire from a rest were not really impressive. Like I said though, it could well be my lack of familiarity with the trigger. The Ruger's trigger pull certainly does not lend itself to accurate target shooting.
I've shot the older P90's and P89's a lot in the past. They were clunky and big, but felt very sturdy. This one does not inspire the same "Ruger Ruggedness" that I am use to, but then I guess it is a much smaller lighter gun, and it seems to be reliable.
The slide release and safety is easy to manipulate and had no sharp edges. The safety has a positive click when moved, and is easy to reach with the thumb. The magazine release button on this one felt fairly stiff to operate, but it is ambidextrous if you want that.
Two things I felt were unnecessary are the loaded chamber indicator, and the uncovered "striker??" at the rear of the slide. I don't really see why you wouldn't cover this area up to keep dirt etc from getting in it.
Overall the gun felt very lightweight to me, even though on paper it weighs more than the GLOCKS I usually shoot. The frame seemed to be less substantial, I suppose. The trigger felt a little rough/gritty, and a bit heavier than a GLOCK's. I did notice some trigger slap-back after firing strings while riding the trigger to reset, the way you would with a GLOCK. The Ruger trigger seemed to have a fairly quick reset.
I wouldn't really want to judge the accuracy based on only 200 rounds fired, since I am not use to the trigger. The Ruger definitely has acceptable combat accuracy, but the groups I did fire from a rest were not really impressive. Like I said though, it could well be my lack of familiarity with the trigger. The Ruger's trigger pull certainly does not lend itself to accurate target shooting.
I've shot the older P90's and P89's a lot in the past. They were clunky and big, but felt very sturdy. This one does not inspire the same "Ruger Ruggedness" that I am use to, but then I guess it is a much smaller lighter gun, and it seems to be reliable.
Maybe the trigger on the one you shot truly is rough, but the SR9 is far superior to the Glock or XDm as far as i'm concerned.
