Ruger military pistol concept
- Thread starter HerrJaegermeister
- Start date
juliet charley
New member
CZ-
You're right the pistols are probably the weakest links in Ruger's line-up. His revolvers (SA and DA) have been forward leaning as has his entire long gun collection.
The P-85/89 was pretty much state of the art when they were introduced (corresponding roughly to the second-generation Smiths which wear nothing to write home about either), but they were really never truly upgraded. I have always like the P-93 the best of the lot (it is a neat pistol), and I have friend who swears by his P-944. The P-90 is big (but so is the P220). I really wish Ruger had went ahead and put it out in the 10 mm for which it was designed. The ones I had have been absolutely, utterly reliable (as good as anything Glock or Sig or has done).
In some ways, the polymers are more innovative than any others out there: the polymner itself probably has the best "feel" of any of the polymers (stronger, more rigid--I don't know, but to me it doesn't feel like "plastic" when I shoot it), it doesn't require metal inserts--its just a handle. Again, they have maintained utter reliability and "built like a tank" toughness.
One thing you can say about his handgun line-up for sure is that there is no better value for your dollar on the market.
You're right the pistols are probably the weakest links in Ruger's line-up. His revolvers (SA and DA) have been forward leaning as has his entire long gun collection.
The P-85/89 was pretty much state of the art when they were introduced (corresponding roughly to the second-generation Smiths which wear nothing to write home about either), but they were really never truly upgraded. I have always like the P-93 the best of the lot (it is a neat pistol), and I have friend who swears by his P-944. The P-90 is big (but so is the P220). I really wish Ruger had went ahead and put it out in the 10 mm for which it was designed. The ones I had have been absolutely, utterly reliable (as good as anything Glock or Sig or has done).
In some ways, the polymers are more innovative than any others out there: the polymner itself probably has the best "feel" of any of the polymers (stronger, more rigid--I don't know, but to me it doesn't feel like "plastic" when I shoot it), it doesn't require metal inserts--its just a handle. Again, they have maintained utter reliability and "built like a tank" toughness.
One thing you can say about his handgun line-up for sure is that there is no better value for your dollar on the market.
I love Rugers single action revolver lineup and also the double action revolver lineup. I like the P-Series semi-autos in general, but I agree that they are the weak link. I honestly do have nitpicks with the P-Series that I wish Ruger would fix--like the ones I mentioned in the previous post. Even my Ruger P97--which I consider to be the best of the P-Series--has some areas that I am honestly not happy about (sloppy slide to frame fit, sub par fit/finish, and severe side to side play in the trigger).
I agree that for the money, Ruger handguns (and long-guns) are excellent. I own more Rugers than any other firearm, so I am definitely a Ruger supporter.
I think it can be argued that CZ's match Ruger semi-autos for "value for your dollar", but either way both are fine buys.Abominable No-Man
New member
The Army issued the Ruger, Colt, & S&W .38 revolvers for a long
time, for their aircrews.
In my younger, pre-aviation days, I used a .45 1911 quite a bit,
and I still like it a lot. I would rather have a 1911 than a Beretta,
but I think my qualifications are a bit extreme- I have a phobia
against Berettas. When we first got them, I saw a slide separate
from a frame during firing and nail a guy in the head (good thing
he was wearing his kevlar). Haven't cared for them since.
ANM
time, for their aircrews.
In my younger, pre-aviation days, I used a .45 1911 quite a bit,
and I still like it a lot. I would rather have a 1911 than a Beretta,
but I think my qualifications are a bit extreme- I have a phobia
against Berettas. When we first got them, I saw a slide separate
from a frame during firing and nail a guy in the head (good thing
he was wearing his kevlar). Haven't cared for them since.
ANM
being the former jarhead that i am, i would carry a ruger (p-90s and up) as a backup weapon. preferably .45(what is it the p-95?) since we cant carry hp ammo.
What would i prefer to carry?(pistol-wise of course)
-my kimber that is being customized by Scott at SDM Fabricating
- HK USP fs, tactical or expert
-a glock (most likely in .40. the 21 and 20 are a bit big)
-cz-75 or BHP
-ruger
yes in that order
im not sure id take a box stock 1911, but...., slightly smithed mil-spec 1911s might actually be even above the kimber(sights, reliability, bevel magwell, trigger work; basic stuff)in this type of environment. i know this is the source of a lot of debate, but me personally, id like to be safe rather than sorry. i owned a sistema once it had a lot of problems at first(but i should blame it on the mag not the gun) but still i did have problems with it. i couldnt hit **** with it either. worst trigger EVER on any weapon ive ever owned. now on the other hand my LB PII and my wilson protector were wonderful gats...yo. hence, therein may lie my bias.
so without customizing the weapon, my personal preferences are on the foreign weapons.
since most guys dont get issued sidearms anyway, most of us buy our own(if at all. I know I have!).
its nice to have a backup in case our m4s or m16a2s fail (thats NEVER happened[snicker]!).
i dont care what nationality the weapon was concieved or made by (usp's WERE designed with the american shooter in mind), i just want what works the best.
a lot of people testify that thier ruger .45 works just as good(if not more reliable!!) as thier sig 220. now thats definately something to ponder.
What would i prefer to carry?(pistol-wise of course)
-my kimber that is being customized by Scott at SDM Fabricating
- HK USP fs, tactical or expert
-a glock (most likely in .40. the 21 and 20 are a bit big)
-cz-75 or BHP
-ruger
yes in that order
im not sure id take a box stock 1911, but...., slightly smithed mil-spec 1911s might actually be even above the kimber(sights, reliability, bevel magwell, trigger work; basic stuff)in this type of environment. i know this is the source of a lot of debate, but me personally, id like to be safe rather than sorry. i owned a sistema once it had a lot of problems at first(but i should blame it on the mag not the gun) but still i did have problems with it. i couldnt hit **** with it either. worst trigger EVER on any weapon ive ever owned. now on the other hand my LB PII and my wilson protector were wonderful gats...yo. hence, therein may lie my bias.
so without customizing the weapon, my personal preferences are on the foreign weapons.
since most guys dont get issued sidearms anyway, most of us buy our own(if at all. I know I have!).
its nice to have a backup in case our m4s or m16a2s fail (thats NEVER happened[snicker]!).
i dont care what nationality the weapon was concieved or made by (usp's WERE designed with the american shooter in mind), i just want what works the best.
a lot of people testify that thier ruger .45 works just as good(if not more reliable!!) as thier sig 220. now thats definately something to ponder.
BrokenArrow
New member
The military had over 400,000 M1911A1 pistols in inventory when the M9 was selected. Most of them were "unserviceable". If they really were, or were declared such to get the M9 rolling is open for debate. In 1984 I was isuued an M1911A1 made by Remington during WWII that worked fine.
IIRC, over 450,000 M9s have been bought so far. Original 5 year contract for 350,000 pistols called for first year pistols to be made/assembled in Italy, second year made there/assembled here, third through fifth year made/assembled here. Since you-know-what, the Reserves and Navy have both bought more M9s. Go figure.
Replacing all of them would probably cost over $50 million. A lot of money, but less than the cost of one fighter aircraft.
During development of the P-series, Ruger was advised by someone very familiar with the JSSAP (Joint Services Small Arms Project) requirements. The Ruger still failed the M10 trials, they did know why, and they did not contest. BTW, S&W failed the test for firing pin energy (calculations were wrong; they really passed) and the 5000 round durability test. Gun frames cracked under 5000 rounds. S&W argued the guns completed the 5000 round test within the relaiblity standard anyway, so the cracked frames shouldn't have disqualified them; the govt disagreed. Spin that any way ya want. The Ruger was at the bottom of the FBI pistol evaluations in the late 80s (then again, so was the Glock). Ruger, Glock, and S&W were all passed over by the INS/Border Patrol for the Beretta after their pistol T&E. I heard Ruger offered the Southport CT/Prescott AZ PD free Rugers but they decided to buy Glocks. Don't know if it's true, but it's a great story.
The revolvers semed to be gaining ground on the S&Ws in federal service when the big switch to autos hit (Marshals, INS/BP).
Rugers are good guns and they sell great on the civilian market; don't seem to do as well in the mil/pol market here or abroad (I have seen some Ruger autos in Israel and Turkey, and I think the Brits and French bought some revolvers).
I was going somewhere with all this, but I got lost...
IIRC, over 450,000 M9s have been bought so far. Original 5 year contract for 350,000 pistols called for first year pistols to be made/assembled in Italy, second year made there/assembled here, third through fifth year made/assembled here. Since you-know-what, the Reserves and Navy have both bought more M9s. Go figure.
Replacing all of them would probably cost over $50 million. A lot of money, but less than the cost of one fighter aircraft.
During development of the P-series, Ruger was advised by someone very familiar with the JSSAP (Joint Services Small Arms Project) requirements. The Ruger still failed the M10 trials, they did know why, and they did not contest. BTW, S&W failed the test for firing pin energy (calculations were wrong; they really passed) and the 5000 round durability test. Gun frames cracked under 5000 rounds. S&W argued the guns completed the 5000 round test within the relaiblity standard anyway, so the cracked frames shouldn't have disqualified them; the govt disagreed. Spin that any way ya want. The Ruger was at the bottom of the FBI pistol evaluations in the late 80s (then again, so was the Glock). Ruger, Glock, and S&W were all passed over by the INS/Border Patrol for the Beretta after their pistol T&E. I heard Ruger offered the Southport CT/Prescott AZ PD free Rugers but they decided to buy Glocks. Don't know if it's true, but it's a great story.
The revolvers semed to be gaining ground on the S&Ws in federal service when the big switch to autos hit (Marshals, INS/BP).
Rugers are good guns and they sell great on the civilian market; don't seem to do as well in the mil/pol market here or abroad (I have seen some Ruger autos in Israel and Turkey, and I think the Brits and French bought some revolvers).
I was going somewhere with all this, but I got lost...
Last edited:
George Hill
Staff Alumnus
They used silenced Colt Woodsmen and High Standard .22s... Not Rugers.
Ruger getting the contract? Thats almost as silly has Berretta getting it. Ruger isn't the greatest American hero to our gun rights... and his guns (Autos) are just crap. If any american company gets the contract - it should be Colt or Springfield Armory to make 1911A1s for the Military.
Ruger getting the contract? Thats almost as silly has Berretta getting it. Ruger isn't the greatest American hero to our gun rights... and his guns (Autos) are just crap. If any american company gets the contract - it should be Colt or Springfield Armory to make 1911A1s for the Military.
BrokenArrow
New member
I think Springfield Armory 1911s are made in Brazil, assembled and finished here. And their new polymer auto, the XD is made in Croatia, was called the HS2000 not long ago.
Berettas are made in a plant in Maryland by Merkuns!
Contracts usually call for the ability to produce them from scratch in the USA if necessary, so it really doesn't make much difference who gets the contract to me as long as it's good stuff. I would just as soon rather have had an AK made in eastern europe, or here under license as the Colt/FN (made in US) made M16s I was issued.
Berettas CEO flew from Italy to America to tell the gun grabbers not just no, but "hell no!" in person when being pressured to make the kind of deal S&W did. Take your friends (and enemies) where ya find them?
Berettas are made in a plant in Maryland by Merkuns!
Contracts usually call for the ability to produce them from scratch in the USA if necessary, so it really doesn't make much difference who gets the contract to me as long as it's good stuff. I would just as soon rather have had an AK made in eastern europe, or here under license as the Colt/FN (made in US) made M16s I was issued.
Berettas CEO flew from Italy to America to tell the gun grabbers not just no, but "hell no!" in person when being pressured to make the kind of deal S&W did. Take your friends (and enemies) where ya find them?
Lots of factless nonsensical Ruger bashing around here. Ruger's new guns feel better than many high priced european models that everyone raves about, and they have better accuracy to boot. Ruger's will generally outlast their competitors and there is independent testing to back that up. Furthermore, the reason they don't do well in military/police markets, is that they really don't TRY to compete in those markets. Their focus is civilian firearms! I have however, seen police carrying Rugers, including the new P97.
US corporations & US made for US military
Great thread, these are all issues I've been harping about here for sometime. Many great points made here on both sides of the issue. I only have one thing to add --
I believe US corporations CAN design and build firearms that are the equal or superior to any produced anywhere in the world. Many such examples exist. In addition to this, I believe the US government using US taxpayer dollars (firearms corporations pay taxes too) should be working with US corporations to provide our military with the best weapons possible. If they don't get it right, send'em back to the drawing board until they do! We have lots of very smart people here, let's put them to work. I have faith in them and they can do it.
(one final observation - is it possible that firearms procurement of the last few years has been dominated by foreign firms because the previous firearms-hostile administration didn't want to strengthen companies they are trying to put out of business anyways? Just a thought.)
Great thread, these are all issues I've been harping about here for sometime. Many great points made here on both sides of the issue. I only have one thing to add --
I believe US corporations CAN design and build firearms that are the equal or superior to any produced anywhere in the world. Many such examples exist. In addition to this, I believe the US government using US taxpayer dollars (firearms corporations pay taxes too) should be working with US corporations to provide our military with the best weapons possible. If they don't get it right, send'em back to the drawing board until they do! We have lots of very smart people here, let's put them to work. I have faith in them and they can do it.
(one final observation - is it possible that firearms procurement of the last few years has been dominated by foreign firms because the previous firearms-hostile administration didn't want to strengthen companies they are trying to put out of business anyways? Just a thought.)
Interesting idea, but I dunno... Many of the most dramatic inroads by SIG, Glock and Beretta in the LE marketplace were made during Republican administrations. The XM9 pistol trials which were won by Beretta (or SIG, depending on who's telling the tale
) took place on the Reagan Administration's watch...BrokenArrow
New member
Beretta has passed every military test it has been entered in. If you think they were all fixed ya probably see black helicopters flying around the neighborhood too... certainly possible, but not very probable (testing fraud I mean; I did fly around in black helicopters, but lets not go there now). I knew someone who actually worked this stuff from the first USAF 9mm pistol tests in the late 70s (Beretta was best in those too BTW) to the JSSAP/XM9 in the 80s; he didn't see any funny bizness, and he certainly didn't do any himself.
Beretta and SIG were both declared "technically acceptable" in the M9 trials. Beretta actually beat SIG in some tests. SIG won the initial bid. Beretta won the final bid after some changes were made by the govt. SIG threw in the extras for the same price, Beretta actually lowered their price. That looks like they had some inside info; prove it. We did want some GLCM (ground launched cruise missile) bases in Italy... That's a long way from fraud in the testing itself though.
Rugers are very tough, durable guns as any rental range that sees a lot of rounds go through a lot of guns will tell you. I know a cop who went through some advanced tactical training given by the federal govt w his Ruger P90 and Mini-14. By the end of the course, he was the only shooter who did not not have any weapons related problems (of all the Glocks, SIGs, Beretta, Bushmasters, Colts, etc at least one of each choked at least once). Ya never know?
Beretta and SIG were both declared "technically acceptable" in the M9 trials. Beretta actually beat SIG in some tests. SIG won the initial bid. Beretta won the final bid after some changes were made by the govt. SIG threw in the extras for the same price, Beretta actually lowered their price. That looks like they had some inside info; prove it. We did want some GLCM (ground launched cruise missile) bases in Italy... That's a long way from fraud in the testing itself though.
Rugers are very tough, durable guns as any rental range that sees a lot of rounds go through a lot of guns will tell you. I know a cop who went through some advanced tactical training given by the federal govt w his Ruger P90 and Mini-14. By the end of the course, he was the only shooter who did not not have any weapons related problems (of all the Glocks, SIGs, Beretta, Bushmasters, Colts, etc at least one of each choked at least once). Ya never know?