Ruger military pistol concept

H

HerrJaegermeister

New member
I think Ruger could be fully capable of mass producing a two lines of military pistols that could be cost effective and reliable for general issue to our troops.

Hear me out on this without going into hysterics about Glock, Sig, HK. I think an American manufacturer should produce a U.S. military pistol.

We're talking about a big contract here.

Pistol No. 1: general issue .45

Start with the polymer P-series frame. Use green polymer mix, incorporate a squared larger trigger guard for use with winter gloves, a more aggressive texture for better grip, finger grooves, a lanyard loop. Make the grip just big enough for 10 or 12 round double stack mags like the USP 45.

Controls should be enlarged for use with gloves. The pistol should have a manual safety that decocks, ala P94 or new P95 version. That way, troops could carry a round in the chamber with the safety on and be able to decock. (Soldier proof: if there is such a thing.) An accessory rail should also be easy to mold into the bottom of the frame.

The slide should be stainless with a dull black coating. The slide should be longer than the P97 to allow for a 5-inch barrel. The barrel should be threaded with a screw-on thread protector. A suppressor could be used also for some applications.


Pistol No. 2: a 9mm officer's model to adhere to NATO doctrine.

Base it on a P95 with the above goodies except for standard barrel without threads. Of course, 15 round mags with larger controls and the green polymer frame with grippy texture.

The new Rugers P95 and P97 are excellent pistols. America would be in control of its military contract, and the cost per unit would be favorable to large contracts.

How 'bout them apples
 
Podnuh I am right there with ya. American owned concerns should be making the firearms that our men and women carry--------------period. I wish we would do a time change thing and have it where the policticians of today were for one hour back with those during the time of WWII. I bet there would be alot of kicked butts on Capital hill. If there was just a way we could let our past leaders know what a sorry bunch of no-count wishy-washy sapsuckers are in DC right now--------------democrat and republican.
 
I agree. If the United States Government doesn't believe that a US company can make a quality semi-auto pistol how can they expect the public to have confidence in US products? There are other firearms the military utilizes which are made by foreign concerns also. Why? I can remember when DOD purchased K-cars, Dodge pickups, Chevy Blazers and they were all, collectively a POS for military requirements but they were not Renaults, Fiats or Yugos. Why doesn't DOD buy some MIG 31's since they could get them cheaper than a F-22? All I am saying is that there is much more to a military weapon than the price tag. The .45 was a symbol of America; the Beretta ain't. Rant off.
 
I read somewhere that at least the latest M9's that were ordered, around 45,000 units, were all built stateside somewhere in the east. I don't know about all the other contracts however. I guess that helps at least some american workers. As far as ruger is concerned, I would hope that their new products are vastly superior to the P -85 or 89 what ever the 45 model was, If it is not I am sure I would not want it.
 
THAT'S SO CUTE

Wonder if Ruger engineers and marketing types ever thought of going after our military contract?........

I wish Ruger would get it, because I like Rugers.

Except I don't own any of their automatics because I don't like them.
 
Actually, the original P-85 was designed to compete for the new US sidearm, but it was not ready in time for the US trials. Many believe that because of it's rugedness, reliability, and low cost, it may very well have ended up as the new US standard sidearm.
 
Part of winning the M-9 contract...

...was Beretta agreeing to manufacture the pistols in the US. (A rumor I heard attributes Sigarms factory in Exeter to their expectation of the P-226 winning)

This is frequently a stipulation in military weapons contracts. Ever wonder how Taurus ended up owning a former Beretta factory in Brazil?
 
I like Rugers.....but.....

I don't see this ever happening. Ruger is very conservative regarding its gun designs. I could not see them producing a military pistol....I wish they would but I just don't see it.
 
Why not Ruger? The military is already stuck with an oversized pistol in the Beretta, and I don't see why the current P89 couldn't pass the test, let alone a composite frame edition. The controls are pretty much the same, ambi safety/mag release and so on. I don't see the military going for another 45 as they have invested heavily in the 1911 and HK for special ops people.
I do understand and agree with procurement of the best possible weapons systems for our armed forces. What I don't see is why the government thinks it has to go outside of our borders in order to supposedly achieve it? They won't buy from their own countrymen? And building a manufacturing concern here and hiring Americans to run it while the profits go over the ocean just don't cut it with me. We send out more than enough in foreign aid and military support to other countries as is.Kinda sad to me.
These supposed competitive testing trials should be with the idea of finding the best design, and if it cannot be found, should be delayed until someone comes up with the design to meet or better yet, exceed specifications. Its not like we are going to use a pistol for a primary issue to the infantry.
And, while you're at it, ALL weapons systems should be made by Americans at American factories. I will never believe America cannot build anything to compete or better to what washes onto our shores.
 
The Ruger P-85 was entered in the second round of tests in 1988 for the second contract. Had a different pistol been selected it would have become the M10. Smith & Wesson submitted a 2nd/3rd Gen 9mm hybrid in the trials, which had taken place largely because of their protests over the handling of the previous trials. As far as I know, according to the Pentagon the Beretta was the only one to even pass those trials, but other sources say the P-85 and S&W were eliminated without even being told how and why their products failed.

What IS known of course was that S&W and Ruger gave up pursuing legal action and contesting the selection. I guess they both finally realized the whole thing was rigged from the start and that Beretta was going to be the winner no matter what, IMHO.
 
BTW regarding American vs. foreign weapons systems, we now have a total European ensemble. The rifleman uses the FN-manufactured M-16. The guard uses the Italian Beretta, while others may choose to use the German SIG P228. The SAW operator uses the Belgian M-249. The Navy SEAL gets to use either a SIG P-226 or the heavy HK SOCCOM to compliment his HK MP-5. The poor Marine MEU/SOC units that refuse to give up their 1911s are under constant pressure to junk them and go with something more modern (i.e. foreign), by making them rebuild the old ones and not be able to buy complete new ones.

It's a different Army, a different time. Certainly not saying the foreign guns are junk (the MP-5 certainly isn't!), but I think the procurement policy is clear.
 
Don't get me wrong, I love Rugers. The problem is, holding one of their automatic pistols is like holding a 2x4. To me, a Beretta feels about perfect. Any larger would make it difficult for many that carry a sidearm in the military.
 
Rugers were issued to U.S. forces

I don't know if Rugers are used anymore, but I know they were issued to U.S. Navy carrier pilots/aircrews during the Gulf War. They carried Ruger P series 9MM pistols, but I don't remember which model it was. Probably the P-85.
 
Hell, if the US military is going to go back to the .45ACP, then they shouls go back to the gun it was designed for - 1911. If you want a 9mm that is similar, get the Browning Hi-Power.

NATO or not, we should be getting weapons for our military that work. There is/was nothing wrong with the 1911. The ones they may have had here in recent years may have been old, but then just scrap the old ones and replace with new ones as need be.

My rant is over. Thanks for reading. :)
 
Being the ravenous duck hunter that I am and having been more than once in a swamp or slough down in SE Arkansas when a shotgun went on the blink, I know, love and am addicted to the dependabilty of the Beretta 390 series gas operated shotguns.

That said, I would feel alot better if our military weapons are made by companies owned by Americans. Again, I like Berettas but it's the principal of the thing.
 
Regarding the feel or Rugers, the P89 and P90 do feel somewhat like bricks or 2x4s. However, the P93, P94, P95, and P97 all feel as good or better than Sigs, Beretta's, etc. Especially when the standard grips are dropped in favor of Houges or similar after market grips panels. The P95 and P97 have better ergonomics than the M9. The grips are thinner and the trigger reach is shorter.
 
I think the U.S. should pick the best weapon for the job, period. The rate of advancement in technology is truly mind blowing. We should hold weapons testing more often. Make the companies compete more, and we get better guns! Just hold a new test when we have about worn out the last batch of guns. Just make sure the test is far to all makers, and if it is won by another company, make them build a factory in the U.S. so we can at least get the jobs here.

Oh yea, the Ruger Mk 2 target pistol was issued to the U.S. Navy SEAL teams! :eek: I kid you not. The main difference was the barrel, it was a longer bull barrel, that was also a silencer! This was in a friends "weapons of wars" type book.
BTW, I own one those Mk 2 pistols (gov target model), very accuate, and very heavy! It has a tendency to jam after 50 rounds w/out cleaning though. Better ammo and oil would probably help.... I just use the cheapest stuff I can find, Like federal 550 rd boxes, lose in box for $8.50...
 
Yeah, silenced Ruger .22's were very popular by Spec Ops in Vietnam for taking out sentries etc.
Personaly, I think the P-85 would have been an excellent choice for the armed forces. They are built like tanks.
 
You are joking aren't you? Bill Ruger is one of the most (if not the most) innovative gun designer and manufacturer in the world.
Click to expand...

Let me clarify what I am getting at.

Ruger has never upgraded the P89/P90 to my satisfaction. They are still without slide serrations, the ergonomics are still sub par, and the DA trigger pull is still not good (long and heavy). The P89/P90 are good guns, but they could be so much better with these minor changes. Its hardly an "innovative" design.

I grant you that the revolvers are innovative (ie I love the easy take down), but as a whole their semi-autos while being very good could be better if Ruger made an effort to improve the previously mentioned areas.

I even own the newest P-Series pistol (P97), and while I like it a lot (mine is reliable and accurate) there are a lot of areas that are weak when compared to the imports.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top