New Ruger American pistol. Why?
- Thread starter bricz75
- Start date
.polaris joe
New member
They were following the new trend
of single action striker fired autos.
of single action striker fired autos.
. We all know how well that went.carguychris
New member
Only Ruger's marketing department knows for sure, but here's my personal theory.bricz75 said:
The primary reason was to offer something more directly comparable to the competition (read: Glock/M&P) in order to win LE contracts—a shrewd strategy given that many industry observers believe that the U.S. commercial market for 9mm/.40 striker pistols is nearing saturation or is past that point.
The secondary reason was to offer something cosmetically distinctive that would stand out better in the gun-store display case. The SR series' styling is very nondescript and non-aggressive, and IMHO Ruger misread the direction of the market in this regard.
Judging buy the success of Ruger's American and American Predator, I have a feeling Ruger Marketing people know what they are doing. I'm betting they dont loose money on the Ruger American Pistol.
I doubt I buy one. Not into tactical style pistols, mainly I'm a revolver guy, but I did get an LC9s pro which I am quite impressed with.
If the American is anything like the LCPs Pro, as in reliability, ease of shooting, and accuracy, I can see it in USPSA/3 Gun style Matches.
I doubt I buy one. Not into tactical style pistols, mainly I'm a revolver guy, but I did get an LC9s pro which I am quite impressed with.
If the American is anything like the LCPs Pro, as in reliability, ease of shooting, and accuracy, I can see it in USPSA/3 Gun style Matches.
carguychris
New member
I've seen this theory as well, but I've yet to see it verified a reputable independent published source, and the Ruger doesn't have the modular chassis required for the contract.Siggy-06 said:
(It's been frequently pointed out that a standard Glock doesn't have a modular chassis either, and I can't explain why it was considered; there's widespread speculation that Glock submitted a redesigned modular "mystery" pistol that met the requirement, but AFAIK this hasn't been independently verified either.)
The SR9 isn't service grade?
I don't think the American is much more money than the SR9.
My guess is they won't make inroads against Glock/M&P.
The SR9 is double action and the American is single action?
If you do a google search about the MHS contract Ruger chose not to enter the competition.
I seriously doubt it. I've never really seen Ruger to have a large following in that circle and this pistol doesn't really stand out in ergos or trigger, which is pretty high on the list for that crowd.
carguychris
New member
"Service grade" is one of those marketing slogans that's been overused to the point of near-meaninglessness, like "Tactical."kozak6 said:
However, IMHO kozak6 has a point about the SR's lack of a full metal subframe. IMHO it's debatable whether a full subframe is a benefit, but the point is that numerous competitors have one and the SR doesn't.
I would also point to the fact that the SR is only sold with a magazine disconnect, manual thumb safety, and an LCI, and had the bad fortune of coming to market at a time when those features were becoming unfashionable.
I agree with kozak6 that there is definitely a perception that the SR is not a serious "tactical" or "service grade" pistol—whatever those terms mean—due to its features, and, I would argue, its milquetoast styling. Is this perception fair to the SR series? Probably not. But the perception is there, and it's beyond dispute that the SR has not made serious inroads into the LE market.
It's not, and if I worked at the Ruger marketing department, I would have priced it significantly higher to make people believe it was a bigger improvement over the SR. Seriously. But they didn't ask me.bricz75 said:
Many modern striker pistols blur the distinction between DA and SA, and AFAIK this includes both Rugers. However, I don't want to reopen this particular dead-horse-beating contest.bricz75 said:
That said, the important point is that the American Pistol has a shorter trigger at a time when shorter triggers are in vogue.
Yup.T. O'Heir said:
IMHO the American Pistol is a Me-Too product and I think this was a very deliberate decision on Ruger's part.
Previous to the American, Ruger had gone through several evolutionary steps in centerfire pistol development, with none ever being truly competitive in the service pistol category.
The RAP is twice the pistol that the SR9 is, and now finally a truly modern competitive gun built with current features & to stand up for the long run.
The SR9 is what in other areas of manufacture would be called "consumer grade", the RAP is what I call "pro grade".
Ruger used the military trials standards to build ON, but not FOR.
They decided there wouldn't be enough money in it to bother with if selected.
Before SR9 fans light the torches- my comments & opinions are based on having either owned or worked with samples of every generation of full-sized centerfire auto-pistols Ruger has introduced since the 1980s (excepting only the P85), on discussions with a retired Ruger engineer about the SR9, and on discussions with three gunsmithing concerns.
The SR9 is an OK pistol, but it's not a great pistol.
There's a reason why you don't see it in competition & professional leather.
It IS an evolutionary step in Ruger history, but it was not worth trying to upgrade or force into a service pistol role.
With the RAP, Ruger has finally arrived on the national stage.
Denis
The RAP is twice the pistol that the SR9 is, and now finally a truly modern competitive gun built with current features & to stand up for the long run.
The SR9 is what in other areas of manufacture would be called "consumer grade", the RAP is what I call "pro grade".
Ruger used the military trials standards to build ON, but not FOR.
They decided there wouldn't be enough money in it to bother with if selected.
Before SR9 fans light the torches- my comments & opinions are based on having either owned or worked with samples of every generation of full-sized centerfire auto-pistols Ruger has introduced since the 1980s (excepting only the P85), on discussions with a retired Ruger engineer about the SR9, and on discussions with three gunsmithing concerns.
The SR9 is an OK pistol, but it's not a great pistol.
There's a reason why you don't see it in competition & professional leather.
It IS an evolutionary step in Ruger history, but it was not worth trying to upgrade or force into a service pistol role.
With the RAP, Ruger has finally arrived on the national stage.
Denis
Last edited:
