New Ruger American pistol. Why?
- Thread starter bricz75
- Start date
Why do you think they're selling so poorly? I found them to be pretty compelling. Not enough to buy one when I already own other similar guns, but I'd seriously consider it if I actually needed one. The ergonomics were pretty good and I thought the trigger was actually quite good. Also, the compact version seems big enough to be serious and small enough to conceal.
But they almost seem to have been discounted from conversations. Too little too late? Even if they made it out of diamonds and gold, would anyone really notice them in a room filled with Glocks and P320s and M&P 2.0s?
On the other hand...Walther was pretty much a niche player but recently they've really stepped up their game and are running serious rebates to get their stuff into more hands. Maybe Ruger should be doing the same?
For one thing, Ruger's past rep for workable centerfire pistols that were not keeping up with the rest of the market is working against them.
For another, it's a new model & may take some time to build up steam.
The one I had here, as I've mentioned elsewhere, went through 5500 rounds on one initial lube, with no cleaning or additional lube anywhere along the line, and only produced one feeding failure, during a repeat of beginning accuracy testing at the end, with one non-standard light 9mm load.
Original extractor, same magazine.
It shot tighter at the end than the beginning, and at the end of 5500 rounds it outshot a new Smith M&P 9mm with less than 300 rounds through it.
It simply offers more for the money than the SR9.
I would have had no hesitation whatever in carrying a RAP on duty.
I would not have chosen the SR9 for that role.
Don't mis-read any of this to convey the idea that I'm saying the SR9 is junk.
It isn't.
It's just not what the RAP is.
Denis
For another, it's a new model & may take some time to build up steam.
The one I had here, as I've mentioned elsewhere, went through 5500 rounds on one initial lube, with no cleaning or additional lube anywhere along the line, and only produced one feeding failure, during a repeat of beginning accuracy testing at the end, with one non-standard light 9mm load.
Original extractor, same magazine.
It shot tighter at the end than the beginning, and at the end of 5500 rounds it outshot a new Smith M&P 9mm with less than 300 rounds through it.
It simply offers more for the money than the SR9.
I would have had no hesitation whatever in carrying a RAP on duty.
I would not have chosen the SR9 for that role.
Don't mis-read any of this to convey the idea that I'm saying the SR9 is junk.
It isn't.
It's just not what the RAP is.
Denis
TruthTellers
New member
I had heard something about the MHS contest is why Ruger made the American, I don't believe it now tho, no way the Army was accepting that gun.
I had thought that Ruger was going to drop SR prices down to that of the Taurus PT111 Millenium to compete with that and the American would be the higher end pistol and it came out around the time that Ruger had dropped prices on the old LCP because, again Taurus, was selling the TCP real cheap.
If Ruger did drop the price of SR's down to $250-275, I'd run down to the store in my boxers to get an SR45.
I had thought that Ruger was going to drop SR prices down to that of the Taurus PT111 Millenium to compete with that and the American would be the higher end pistol and it came out around the time that Ruger had dropped prices on the old LCP because, again Taurus, was selling the TCP real cheap.
If Ruger did drop the price of SR's down to $250-275, I'd run down to the store in my boxers to get an SR45.
polaris joe
New member
Yes the Ruger American is single action. The SR series is sort of Glock like.
In striker land, this means the American's striker is fully cocked and TR trigger just releases it? Where the SR and Glock triggers will fully cock the striker AND release it?
Are there guns whose strikers are never partially cocked, and whose triggers so both jobs? I imagine this would be a double action striker?
muzzleblast...
New member
SturmRuger got started with the MkI .22LR pistol which evolved into one of the most successful pistols ever. However, in general, I think it fair to say that Bill Ruger's emphasis was on the consumer sporting market. The M77 bolt action, the Ruger No. 1 single shot, the Blackhawk and Redhawk large revolvers, even the Red Label O/U shotgun proved successful in the marketplace.
It is just my opinion, and observation, that Ruger's attempts to compete in the "service pistol" market have been lackluster. The Service Six series of revolvers were primarily intended to for law enforcement. Although the design was both innovative and solid, going head to head with the firmly entrenched S&W models 10, 19, 27, etc. and the various Colt offerings was a lofty, if not impractical, objective. The Service Six did manage to capture a only a very small share of the market. I am personally a fan of the vintage "Sixes".
Similarly, by the time Ruger brought out their P series semi-autos, LE agencies were full shift away from wheelguns to primarily semi-auto DA/SA pistols. Again, competing against the S&W 2nd and 3rd generation pistols, SIG, as well as the then fledgling Glock proved extremely challenging. IMO the later versions of the P series Rugers were good firearms and I have an admiration of them.
Skipping ahead to the present, it seems to me that once again, Ruger is far behind the curve. The RAP is relatively unremarkable in that it is yet another polymer, double stack, striker fired pistol in what is an already over saturated market dominated by Glock, S&W, H&K, Walther, et. al. Although I have no experience with the RAP, it would not be surprising if it proves to be a solid, functional, durable design. However, I would be surprised if those qualities are enough to actually achieve a significant market share.
It is just my opinion, and observation, that Ruger's attempts to compete in the "service pistol" market have been lackluster. The Service Six series of revolvers were primarily intended to for law enforcement. Although the design was both innovative and solid, going head to head with the firmly entrenched S&W models 10, 19, 27, etc. and the various Colt offerings was a lofty, if not impractical, objective. The Service Six did manage to capture a only a very small share of the market. I am personally a fan of the vintage "Sixes".
Similarly, by the time Ruger brought out their P series semi-autos, LE agencies were full shift away from wheelguns to primarily semi-auto DA/SA pistols. Again, competing against the S&W 2nd and 3rd generation pistols, SIG, as well as the then fledgling Glock proved extremely challenging. IMO the later versions of the P series Rugers were good firearms and I have an admiration of them.
Skipping ahead to the present, it seems to me that once again, Ruger is far behind the curve. The RAP is relatively unremarkable in that it is yet another polymer, double stack, striker fired pistol in what is an already over saturated market dominated by Glock, S&W, H&K, Walther, et. al. Although I have no experience with the RAP, it would not be surprising if it proves to be a solid, functional, durable design. However, I would be surprised if those qualities are enough to actually achieve a significant market share.
I am a Ruger fan, though mostly of single-action revolvers. I fairly recently bought a RAP 9 with manual safety as a high capacity home defense pistol. So far, I like it fine and it seems to be extremely well built. It has features I really like. Will it prove worthy over time? I don't know but suspect so. That said, I was looking for a more compact 9 and narrowed it down mainly to a RAP compact 9 and a Glock 19 Gen 4. (I've never been a striker fan, being traditional, but might as well get with the future and give it a try, eh?) On paper, specs say the Ruger is considerably shorter in both length and in height. In reality, side by side they are so close to the same size as to make the difference meaningless. The Glock OAL is listed as, I think, something like 7.36 inches or so, but that has to be because of the rake of the grip. The slide is approx 6 3/4 inches long, barely more than the RAPc. I am attracted to the RAPc and can see myself getting one down the road, but in this case I chose to spend the extra $100 or so and buy the proven, known commodity of the Gen 4 Glock with its slightly smaller Glock grip (which fits me better with no need of attachments) and 3 15 round mags. No manual safety but that was not a mandatory requirement but just something I wanted for the use of the pistol. To me the Glock trigger feels heavier with a much more pronounced "wall", but I'm no expert. I'm also not a Glock fan by any means but have long admired their practical simplicity and reputation for reliability and durability. To me the RAP seems heavier and more strongly built, but the Glock is a proven and known commodity.
carguychris
New member
More or less.OhioGuy said:
Almost all striker pistols exhibit some degree of striker movement before the release point, and the vast majority cannot fire from the fully decocked position using the trigger alone, i.e. the striker must be at least partially cocked by the cycling slide. This is the reason for my earlier assertion that many blur the distinction between SA and DA.
It's more accurate to say that the RAP striker starts almost fully cocked.
Regarding where the line is drawn between DA and SA, there is no broadly-accepted answer, and many threads debating the topic—hence my earlier reference to a dead-horse-beating contest.
The SR and Glock triggers cannot fully cock the striker from rest. The striker must start from the partially cocked position.OhioGuy said:
The most common pistols with such a trigger are the Walther P99, licensed clones (S&W SW99 and Magnum Research MR Eagle), and close copies (DA/SA versions of the Canik TP9).OhioGuy said:
Last edited:
Model12Win
Moderator
The RAM is a good budget DUTY pistol. Not really all that meant for CCW, a little big for that.
TruthTellers
New member
^ You know what else is a good budget duty pistol? A used Glock, Sig, S&W, Walther...
Ruger started with the standard pistol then mark 1
Sent from my LGMS210 using Tapatalk
Carl the Floor Walker
Moderator
Yes, the rap is nice.
Last edited:
carguychris
New member
Slightly off topic...
Slightly longer answer... the fixed-sight Standard was introduced first. Due to its low price and excellent design, the pistol became a popular basis for gunsmith conversions to a higher-accuracy target gun. Ruger noticed this and introduced the Mark I, a target model with a lengthened heavy barrel and an adjustable rear sight. The Standard continued to be marketed as such.
Ruger later muddied the waters by branding their next-generation .22LR pistol as the Mark II regardless of configuration, and this practice has continued through subsequent generations. This has caused many younger or less historically-minded shooters to conflate all 1st-gen models as Mark I's although this is technically incorrect.
MB, racedawg is correct.muzzleblast... said:
Slightly longer answer... the fixed-sight Standard was introduced first. Due to its low price and excellent design, the pistol became a popular basis for gunsmith conversions to a higher-accuracy target gun. Ruger noticed this and introduced the Mark I, a target model with a lengthened heavy barrel and an adjustable rear sight. The Standard continued to be marketed as such.
Ruger later muddied the waters by branding their next-generation .22LR pistol as the Mark II regardless of configuration, and this practice has continued through subsequent generations. This has caused many younger or less historically-minded shooters to conflate all 1st-gen models as Mark I's although this is technically incorrect.
Last edited: