Don't Get the SR9 Mag Disconnect

[Homerboy]

I like mag disconnects. Why I'm looking at the SR9. I have the new LC9-S and love it. But on the LC9, I can flip the safety off and on even if the gun isn't cocked, and with the mag out, the trigger won't move.

But on the SR9, the safety will not move if the gun is not cocked. OK, not a problem. But you can still pull the trigger with the mag out. It just won't strike a primer. And Ruger advises not to pull the trigger with no mag in. And since you can pull the trigger, if you put the mag back in after doing that, you have to rack the slide to cock the gun again, which ejects the live round you had in the chamber!

I really like the SR9. Has all the features I look for. Mag disconnect. Manual safety. Loaded chamber indicator. But the mag disconnect he way it is makes no sense, especially since the LC9 operates so differently. Why would ruger allow you to pull the trigger at all if they advise you not to do it without the mag in?

 

[Uncle Malice]

While I don't really know the answer to your question, I must say this is one of the first times I've seen someone who really WANTED the magazine disconnect.

Most times, they are required by either the state law or by the department issueing them - if used by LEO.

For example, the M&P 40 I recently picked up came with the disconnect. Of course, I didn't want it, so a $3 spring and 5 minutes later and it functions just like the rest of the M&Ps.

What is your reason for wanting the magazine disconnect on the gun? Do you feel there is a legitimate safety benefit?

 

[Cyanide971]

And since you can pull the trigger, if you put the mag back in after doing that, you have to rack the slide to cock the gun again, which ejects the live round you had in the chamber!

Homerboy, all you have to do is rack the slide back roughly ¼" or so and the striker will reset itself to it's cocked position.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Why would ruger allow you to pull the trigger at all if they advise you not to do it without the mag in?

You're looking at a design intended to sell for a relatively low-cost. That (low cost) generally means less complex (although the trigger /fire control for the SR9 or SR9c has a lot of components.) It would probably take an even-more complex assembly to build IN a trigger block.

If the gun won't fire with the mag out, but the trigger will still work, I suspect they're trying to keep the user from doing some internal damage. (Some of those smaller guns warn against dry firing, for example, whether the mag is in or out.)

 

[Homerboy]

I want the mag disconnect because it's a feature that has prevented negligent discharges, and certainly lives have been lost because somebody " thought" the gun was unloaded. I don't subscribe to the whole " what if I need that one round while doing a tactical reload in the middle of a gunfight?" The odds are much higher that somebody will have a brain fart rather then get into a shootout where they will have the presence if mind and the skill to do a tactical reload

Walt: the LC9 is even cheaper than the SR9 and they managed to do it.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

QUOT

Walt: the LC9 is even cheaper than the SR9 and they managed to do it.

Yes, you're right -- it's hard to understand their reasoning, and my rationale above may not explain it, either. But, keep in mind that we're talking about two very different guns, with the SR9 being a much more complex machine.

The LC9 is a hammer fired gun. Ruger used the Kel-Tec PF9 as their starting point in creating the LC9 -- so development costs had to be quite a bit less for that gun than most new guns. While the K-T PF9 doesn't have a magazine safety, it does have a hammer block (that keeps the hammer from going forward if dropped). I'm pretty sure that hammer block doesn't keep you from pulling the trigger if the magazine is in or out -- as the owner's manual warns you NOT to dry-fire the gun or pull the trigger with the slide off the frame.

Maybe Ruger added the trigger block and magazine safety to make their version of the basic Kel-Tec design BETTER!

The SR9 was Ruger's first striker-fired large caliber design, and I suspect 1) they either overlooked a trigger block or 2) decided that the already-complex SR9 design was complex enough!

The SR9/SR9c probably has almost as many parts in its trigger assembly as you can find in the entire LC9 gun!

 

[Homerboy]

The LC9-S is the new striker fired version. I had the original LC9 but now have the new improved striker fired version. And the mag disconnect locks the trigger.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

Yes, the LC9s is striker-fired. And probably uses many of the same "internals" as the LC9. It doesn't surprise me that Ruger first added those features, and carried them over to the LC9s --'cause they make the LC9/LC9s even more different than the K-T PF9. (I won't be surprised to see some striker-fired Kel-Tecs one of these days, if the LC9s becomes as popular as I suspect...) That lighter, cleaner trigger is a big improvement.

The unanswered questions is WHY Ruger added a trigger block to the LC9, but not to the SR9 (and SR9c). As I said -- maybe the design was already TOO complex, and the EXTRA features might not have been considered a critical thing.

 

[Snyper]

And since you can pull the trigger, if you put the mag back in after doing that, you have to rack the slide to cock the gun again, which ejects the live round you had in the chamber!

Why are you pulling the trigger with a live round in the chamber if you don't intend to shoot?

 

[Theohazard]

I want the mag disconnect because it's a feature that has prevented negligent discharges, and certainly lives have been lost because somebody " thought" the gun was unloaded.

That may be the case, but I think it's very possible that more lives have been lost from people who were used to relying on mag disconnects (and other safeties) to make the gun safe instead of actually clearing the gun properly, and then they handled a gun without a mag disconnect. That's the problem with relying on various kinds of safeties to make your gun safe: What happens when you're handling a gun without the safeties you've come to rely on?

Gun safety is all about good habits and handling guns safely even while you're not consciously thinking about it. And if someone is used to relying on a mag disconnect, then it's very possible that they could have an issue with a gun that doesn't have a mag disconnect, and that's a potential problem.

As far as I'm concerned, if someone feels they need a mag disconnect to make their guns safe, then they probably should re-evaluate how they handle firearms.

The odds are much higher that somebody will have a brain fart

It's not a "brain fart" to forget to clear the chamber. It's a grossly negligent act by someone who has no business handling firearms.

Why are you pulling the trigger with a live round in the chamber if you don't intend to shoot?

Bingo! The OP is apparently having an issue with the fact that he can pull the trigger and de-cock the gun with a live round in the chamber. In my opinion, if he's worried that he's going to de-cock his gun if he accidentally pulls the trigger with a round in the chamber, then his priorities are off and he needs to completely re-evaluate his gun handling techniques.

I work at an LGS/range, and every day I see gun owners who are used to relying on safeties to make their guns safe. They demonstrate this by casually pointing guns at me with their finger on the trigger.

 

[Fishbed77]

That may be the case, but I think it's very possible that more lives have been lost from people who were used to relying on mag disconnects (and other safeties) to make the gun safe instead of actually clearing the gun properly, and then they handled a gun without a mag disconnect. That's the problem with relying on various kinds of safeties to make your gun safe: What happens when you're handling a gun without the safeties you've come to rely on?

Gun safety is all about good habits and handling guns safely even while you're not consciously thinking about it. And if someone is used to relying on a mag disconnect, then it's very possible that they could have an issue with a gun that doesn't have a mag disconnect, and that's a potential problem.

Yep. This.

Mag disconnects are nothing more than lawyer/politician designed features meant to ensure the "safety" of the public, but with no real basis in fact. Much like restrictions on rifle barrels shorter than 16", suppressors, and nonsense import restrictions.

 

[Webleymkv]

I'm pretty much ambivalent about magazine disconnects in that I don't seek out guns that have them, but they don't bother me either so long as they don't adversely affect the other aspects of the gun (reliability, trigger, etc.). That being said, I have, in fact, heard of a legitimate use for a magazine disconnect which is likely the primary reason that many police departments prefer them. If one is involved in a struggle over the gun, a gun with a magazine disconnect can be disabled by simply ejecting the magazine thus giving the person trying to retain the weapon more time to regain control of it, draw a backup weapon, or make a hasty retreat.

 

[Fishbed77]

If one is involved in a struggle over the gun, a gun with a magazine disconnect can be disabled by simply ejecting the magazine thus giving the person trying to retain the weapon more time to regain control of it, draw a backup weapon, or make a hasty retreat.

You hear this brought up time and again by those defending mag disconnects, but can anyone show proof of any instance of this tactic ever having been used successfully? If you can activate a mag release, it likely means that you already have control of a firearm.

On the other hand, there are plenty of recorded instances of holstered pistols being drawn with a mag that has accidentally been released due to pressure on the thumb button release (which is precisely why I favor HK/Walther style paddle releases over button releases).

If this occurs when using a pistol with a mag disconnect, you have just drawn a non-functioning firearm when you need it the most.

 

[Walt Sherrill]

You hear this brought up time and again by those defending mag disconnects, but can anyone show proof of any instance of this tactic ever having been used successfully? If you can activate a mag release, it likely means that you already have control of a firearm.

On the other hand, there are plenty of recorded instances of holstered pistols being drawn with a mag that has accidentally been released due to pressure on the thumb button release (which is precisely why I favor HK/Walther style paddle releases over button releases).

Plenty of recorded instances? You may be correct, but if you can offer us to links to some of those "recorded instances" of mag safety actually causing a problem for the person with the gun (such as an LEO becoming "unarmed" when he or she didn't choose to be) -- you'll turn another anecdotal comment into a fact. Causing embarrassment is one thing; causing a safety issue is quite different.

As for your statement: "If you can activate a mag release, it likely means that you already have control of a firearm" - I disagree. If someone has their hand(s) on your weapon and is trying to pull if from your hands, your ability to press a mag release doesn't mean you're in control of the weapon...

I've been reading on these forums for years, have had close friends who are or were LEOs, and a son who has been a NC State Trooper for a number of years. I've yet to hear a SINGLE STORY based on personal experience -- (i.e., someone doing it or observing it or relating a story that can be otherwise verified) that showed a mag disconnect CAUSED or PREVENTED a serious problem or safety issue.

I think the biggest advantage of a mag safety is that MIGHT keep somebody from doing something dangerous with a gun they wrongly believe to be unloaded.

That said, I can do without magazine safeties, but their presence won't keep me from using or buying a gun so-equipped. (The one in my BHP has been removed -- and doing so greatly improved the trigger.)

In a subsequent re-read, I see I attributed the quote above to the wrong person. My apologies to Fishbed77 .

.

 

[doofus47]

I took mine out.
Thusfar all is safe in doofus-land.
(feel free to cut and paste that into your "famous last words" signature lines....)

 

[Jimboh247]

I love my SR9c, mag safety or not. Very accurate and reliable.

If there was 1 thing I do not like, it's that you can not clear the weapon without disengaging the safety.

An added layer of protection in my mind is to be able to leave the safety on when clearing.

 

[Homerboy]

Why are you pulling the trigger with a live round in the chamber if you don't intend to shoot?

My point is that Ruger says not to pull the trigger with the mag out as it could damage the striker. So why even make that an option?

As for why I would want to pull the trigger with the mag out, I probably never would want to. Thats my point. So why make it an option? In the event of a dropped mag and a click rather than a bang, reinserting another mag would require me to recock the gun. My S&W 6906 simply makes the trigger dead. But putting the mag back in allows me to fire.

And as for the same old nonsense about gun safety, save it. I've been around guns for over 2 decades. And even the best shooters have had ND's. As a matter of fact, the supreme confidence (arrogance) is what allows them to have an ND. To think it CAN'T happen to you is fantasy. And yes, there ARE documented cases of mag disconnects saving lives, and MANY MORE of somebody "thinking the gun was unloaded" ending lives.

By the way, I bought the SR9. Gonna shoot it tomorrow. Really like it.

 

[Snyper]

My point is that Ruger says not to pull the trigger with the mag out as it could damage the striker. So why even make that an option?

It's not "an option" per se.

It's just how the design happens to work
Every design is a compromise.

It's not a problem when you follow both the instructions and common sense safety rules

And as for the same old nonsense about gun safety, save it. I've been around guns for over 2 decades.

Safety is not nonsense, and in about 30 more years you'll have been shooting as long as I have.

 

[Theohazard]

And as for the same old nonsense about gun safety, save it. I've been around guns for over 2 decades.

First, gun safety sure isn't nonsense. And second, two decades around guns doesn't mean anything. I've seen many, many people with far more experience than that who were unsafe in their gun handling techniques. And I've had many of them casually point guns at me with their finger on the trigger.

And even the best shooters have had ND's.

That's true. And often it's probably due to at least one bad habit they've developed.

As a matter of fact, the supreme confidence (arrogance) is what allows them to have an ND. To think it CAN'T happen to you is fantasy.

Exactly. Every time I handle a gun I assume I could have an ND, and I act accordingly. I don't rely on various mechanical safeties to make the gun safe, I rely on good habits and the four gun safety rules.

In my opinion, someone who has magazine disconnect safeties on all their firearms is more likely to develop bad gun handling habits from relying on those safeties. Are you one of those people? I don't know. But I think magazine disconnect safeties are a bad idea that make guns less safe overall.

 

[DA/SA Fan]

A gun is always loaded. Always. Whether the chamber is empty and the magazine is in another state does not matter. If a brain fart is pointing a gun at something or someone that you don't intend to destroy or kill, you should not be handling a gun. I sincerely believe that mag disconnect safeties are an attempt to make firearms idiot proof. If I am careless or distracted enough to do something due to pure muscle memory that would cause an ND with a gun I'm not used to, the worst that would happen is a loud noise and a hole in my favorite recliner. For new shooters the magazine disconnect is a kind of license to not practice good gun handling........ until someone hands them a gun without one at the range and muscle memory causes a tragedy.