I had almost concluded that I will purchase the M&P .40. However when doing price comparisons at another gun store today; I noted that the SR40 by Ruger is $419.00 brand new while the M&P 40 is $498. Is the M&P really worth that much more? Can anyone give me feedback on the SR40? Both it and the SR9 look like great guns for the price.
SR40 vs. M&P 40
- Thread starter DavidB2
- Start date
- Status
TimboKhan
Member
I don't know about "blowing it away". They are both good guns, and I think the Ruger is the better value, though I am a noted Ruger fanboy.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
sappyg
Member
A friend rented both of these at a local indoor range about a week ago and I tried a mag through each one. Both were excellent and had exceptional triggers IMO. Way better triggers than the Glock I have been use to to shooting.
If I were blindfolded and able to fire both and make a choice between the two I don't think I could pick one over the other more than 50% of the time.
If I were blindfolded and able to fire both and make a choice between the two I don't think I could pick one over the other more than 50% of the time.
Not sure about the .40s, but I have an SR9 that has gone bang every time I have pulled the trigger. My brother in law has a M&P 9 that I saw have a fail to feed fully while we were out shooting. Not sure of the reason, or if it has done it again, but the M&P does not blow the Ruger out of the water in my opinion. They are both good pistols.
I have an M&P full size 40 I picked up used for a real good price. I love to shoot it and it is very accurate. My wife really liked the SR9C but ended up getting her a XD9C (which I am even quicker with) because of the grip safty. But we both enjoyed shooting the SR9C. I have not shot a SR40 or 40C but the only thing I personally didn't like about the Ruger was the ones I handled had a safty. But I would not hesitate to buy a SR if the price was good myself. I can't imagine there being a large difference between a SR40 or a SR9 to shoot and I am baseing that on most guns I notice not much difference between 40's and 9's if in the same size frame. And I was pretty much where you are now a few months ago and then I just happened to be in the gun store on the right day and got $600 worth of gun for under $400. And that is why the M&P is in my hand.
B_Li_Ber_Tar_Ian
Member
- Joined
- Nov 30, 2010
- Messages
- 231
I own an SR9c, SR40, M&P40 and M&P 357sig. I personally prefer the Ruger. The grip fits my hand better and I'm more accurate. Don't get me wrong, they are both fine weapons. I would suggest shooting both, if possible, and get the one you like most. Or get both.
Both are good guns and will serve you well. I own several Ruger handguns and they all work very well. If they don't for some reason, Ruger will make it right for you and do so at their expense.
The Smith vs. Ruger is a Ford vs. Chevy sort of argument. What you like depends on, well ... what you like. The idea that the Smith will "blow away" the Ruger is just a statement of what the poster prefers.
The Smith vs. Ruger is a Ford vs. Chevy sort of argument. What you like depends on, well ... what you like. The idea that the Smith will "blow away" the Ruger is just a statement of what the poster prefers.
When is the last time you shot an SR? I've tried both, and the most up to date SR had the better trigger hands down. Better than the Glock, better than the M&P. There was no creep at all in the SR's trigger
TimboKhan
Member
Well, personal preference obviously influences opinion, and is neither quantifiable or inherently incorrect/correct. You can say over is better than the other, but I don't know how you could quantify that statement. Even triggers or fixed sights is preference.
I love the SR series and will own an SR9 or SR9c again someday, but my personal preference dictates to me that the XD is the cats pajamas when it comes to polymer pistols. I don't think i could make the argument it is superior to any other similar gun in any meaningful, definitive way, but I know it feels like home in my hands, and I shoot it lights out by my standards.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
I love the SR series and will own an SR9 or SR9c again someday, but my personal preference dictates to me that the XD is the cats pajamas when it comes to polymer pistols. I don't think i could make the argument it is superior to any other similar gun in any meaningful, definitive way, but I know it feels like home in my hands, and I shoot it lights out by my standards.
Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2
Ok I should have said: "For me the m&p wins." The sr I shot was bought new about 4 months ago. Yes they're ergonomic, yes they're reliable, no it was not accurate at all! the trigger needed to be pull with a comealong! I will keep my m&p. To each his own.
mgmorden
Member
I own an M&P and have shot an SR9.
Depends honestly on what you plan on doing with it. If its for carry, plinking, or just general home defense, I'd say that I prefer the M&P, but not enough to justify the extra cost.
Ergonomics on both are a draw. Reliability is excellent on both. Ruger's LCI is far more obnoxious and annoying than the M&P's (which is just a small hole to visually check). M&P is available without a safety. The Ruger does have stock adjustable sights though.
Main thing that cemented my preference for the M&P was the availability of a 5" barrel. I use mine a lot in competition and I really like the extra sight radius there. If going for carry though I'd go for the 4" or compact version of either, so with that in mind I'd be more apt to go for the Ruger SR.
Depends honestly on what you plan on doing with it. If its for carry, plinking, or just general home defense, I'd say that I prefer the M&P, but not enough to justify the extra cost.
Ergonomics on both are a draw. Reliability is excellent on both. Ruger's LCI is far more obnoxious and annoying than the M&P's (which is just a small hole to visually check). M&P is available without a safety. The Ruger does have stock adjustable sights though.
Main thing that cemented my preference for the M&P was the availability of a 5" barrel. I use mine a lot in competition and I really like the extra sight radius there. If going for carry though I'd go for the 4" or compact version of either, so with that in mind I'd be more apt to go for the Ruger SR.
dsb1829
Member
Larry's has the M&P on sale @ $399.
IMO the m&p is a higher quality combat pistol and has better ergonomics. Also m&p has more aftermarket support for parts/accessories.
The SR 40 is single action only which is why it has the safety on it, I could see leaving the safety off the pistol if it were double/single action type weapon. I carry the SR 40 as my main carry gun and would leave it at home if the only way to use it were to operate the slide to put a round in the chamber. That is what my opinion is on having a safety on the SR 40.
mgmorden
Member
Pull weight difference between the two is negligible, and can be taken pretty low on an M&P (mine has no safety and breaks at close to 3 lbs). There are plenty of people who prefer a striker gun to have no safety - Ruger should at least offer the option.
WinThePennant
Member
Personally, I prefer the SR40c or SR9c to the SR9 or SR40.
That said, I think the M&P is a better firearm than anything made by Ruger.
That said, I think the M&P is a better firearm than anything made by Ruger.
- Status
