New Ruger American pistol. Why?

FWIW, several models of Glock predate the Smith DAO series
Click to expand...
Oh, yeah. I wasn't trying to claim that a Glock was derivative. Just observing what I see as a similarity in how they function.
 
I was told by one of their marketing people pretty much everyone in marketing and design/engineering wanted to go after the military contract, except the CEO. Ceo made public statements about why he did not want to be involved. He allowed them to develop a pistol and told them up front he wasn't submitting it. He was pushed internally to submit it right up until the deadline, but refused. The contract itself probably would not have done Ruger much good, but I personally believe the resulting civilian sales and edge in LEO orders would have been great.
OTOH, as much as I like the American and it fits my hand very well with the small grip, I'm not convinced it is as well made as the P320.
 
I'm not convinced it is as well made as the P320.
Click to expand...
I am no firearm expert by any means. I have a RAP 9 and do not have a
Sig P320 but I used to have Sig P250 and I understand the chassis, or fire control unit, is either identical or very similar. I'm a little curious why you have doubts the Ruger is as well built. Looking at the steel chassis of both pistols, the Ruger strikes me as being better and more heavily built. Both are stainless but the Ruger is also nitrided. The slide rails on the Ruger are substantial and longer by far than the bent "flanges" that serve as guide rails on the Sig. I'm not trying to knock the Sig but I'm curious what part of the RAP's construction you feel is inferior to the Sig. I haven't decided yet how much I like the RAP, but, so far, I'm certainly impressed with its build quality.
 
No dog in any of this fight but from what I have seen the SIG trigger group is better designed vs the American that I have seen. The American, however, feels like the tougher gun all assembled. It feels hell for stout where I have always felt the P250/P320 felt a little more fragile. (Subjectively speaking on both counts of course)
 
cslinger - don't know about the trigger group but on the other count, my subjective opinion is the same as yours.
 
How the modular parts fit together and robustness of that system. I broke a plastic part on RAP in just a couple minutes. It was an early one and I was told they would look into improving that piece, so maybe not an issue now.
Anyone who has spent much time around a .mil arms room knows those firearms take an absolute beating.
For one, a police officer may be able to replace the weapon every few years. A .mil weapon is likely to last through several officers.
 
I ran the test sample up to 5500 rounds in a little over a month, loading & firing continuously, with no cool down periods during sessions of over 500 rounds each.
As I said previously, only lubed before the test commenced & never cleaned.

Nothing broke, nothing was flimsy, the pistol was used far heavier than any PD would on a routine issue gun for the average non-SWAT officer during a projected 10-year life span before being traded in on some newer design.

I did not find it to be fragile anywhere.
Denis
 
Thanks for elaborating, johnwilliamson. Much appreciated.

DPris - I'm drawing a blank. Has your 5500 round review been published yet? If so, where?
 
A few complaints about my RAP compact.

While I very much dislike the huge loaded chamber thingy on the Ruger SR9, a nice tiny leaf at the extractor like Taurus uses would have been nice.

While I like the trigger action, I don't think much of the trigger itself. I would prefer a serrated trigger instead of the "safety" trigger. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of how this Glock perversion makes things safe.

Other than that, I have no regrets regarding the purchase of this handgun.
 
While I like the trigger action, I don't think much of the trigger itself. I would prefer a serrated trigger instead of the "safety" trigger. I have yet to hear a reasonable explanation of how this Glock perversion makes things safe.
Click to expand...

The "dingus" on the trigger, to my understanding, mainly works as a drop safety. Were the pistol to be dropped muzzle up there is the possibility that momentum could drive the trigger bar rearward. This would disengage the striker block and allow the pistol to fire. However, in order for a Glock to fire that "dingus" on the trigger has to be depressed. Because of how light that "dingus" is it's essentially impossible for it to be depressed from the momentum of a normal drop height. Now you know why it's there. As for why it isn't needed on other designs, the significantly heavier trigger pulls and much longer lengths of travel reduce the chances of the trigger bar being driven rearward to the point where it isn't a concern, or some designs use a manual safety to block the hammer or striker from being released.
 
The RAP has an automatic sear block (at least Ruger says it does) so that little blade thing functions as a placebo. Still wanting a serrated trigger.
 
I ran the test sample up to 5500 rounds in a little over a month, loading & firing continuously, with no cool down periods during sessions of over 500 rounds each. As I said previously, only lubed before the test commenced & never cleaned.
Click to expand...
My worries relate to the assembly and disassembly of the firearm, something you did not test. Have a few casual shooters disassemble the gun, switch out the grips for their size, reassemble, etc., and I think the Sig would outperform the RAP.
I didn't study it though.
I have considered both to replace my Glock, and for personal use I would feel comfortable with either. In the context of an organization filled with ignorant shooters where the modular features are, at least in theory, going to be used, I suspect the Sig has an edge.
 
John,
Having been there, I can state with certainty that the American GI can bust anything ever made, including a rock. :)

If you're thinking that lightly trained troops (most ARE casual shooters) are less likely to mess up the SIG than the Ruger American, I'm leaning towards declaring the idea irrelevant & immaterial to consideration of the everyday civilian shooting guy or gal to buy. :)
Denis
 
DPRIS, I cede the point in regard to the average civilian shooter.

In regard to why Ruger designed the pistol and why it was not submitted I hold my position, though admitting the bulk of the reason it was not submitted was likely the contract hoopla as CEO stated.
 
Its not the average cop or soldier would EVER be allowed to yank that fire control group anyway. That will be an armorer only job.

Chris
 
Before I was my department armorer, I still took e everything I was issued apart and "fixed" it. Our armorer at that time was clueless.
 
I seem to remember that the M17 the military adopted has an additional part that prevents the average soldier from pulling out the chassis so that they can restrict that to armorers.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
The part I broke was a tab on the grip back-strap module. I say "I" but in reality it was myself and the range owner who was has several armorer qualifications. After one was broken I looked at some of the other plastic parts and I wasn't impressed.
I doubt that will be restricted to armorer. One, the armorer is never going to have the correct module, so people are going to buy their own, and two there is almost no way you can stop people from changing. Yes, if you have 200,000 pistols something like that is an issue.

The Ruger was not as well developed at the point of submission as the Sig. May have made improvements by now. I really liked the design of the Ruger and with the small module it fit my hand better than any other double stack I have handled.
 
johnwilliamson062 said:
How the modular parts fit together and robustness of that system. I broke a plastic part on RAP in just a couple minutes. It was an early one and I was told they would look into improving that piece, so maybe not an issue now.
Anyone who has spent much time around a .mil arms room knows those firearms take an absolute beating.
For one, a police officer may be able to replace the weapon every few years. A .mil weapon is likely to last through several officers.
Click to expand...


There's bound to be issues in the beginning. My hunch is Ruger will work things out.

I haven't kept up with the Sig 320 but a couple of things are less than good. One is it is a new design. I know there was the 250 before but this 320 model is new. It went to the military very quickly it seems for a new model. The other thing is it's modular. AFAIK, no military has used a modular pistol. And as John points out, the military firearms take a beating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top