Over the years, I have bought, sold, or traded hundreds of guns new and used. The only gun that I ever had that was a lemon was a Glock 21. I had to send it back to the factory after taking it to the range for the second time. I totally lost faith in it and traded it back to the store before it ever came back. That one gun has forever influenced the way I look at Glocks. Mine didn't go bang every time and every time I hear that statement made I realize how little these comments really mean. Why ? Well just because you bought a gun and it has turned out great for you doesn't automatically make it the greatest thing in the history of firearms. Secondly, just because you bought a gun and had problems with it doesn't mean they are all junk. Third, no one can give an honest opinion on a comparison unless they have owned both products and shot both extensively. Repeat extensively. No one can give an honest opinion of the best of anything unless they have extensively tested every other similar product out there. The point being for me at least is that both companies produce great products. Both are durable, reliable, and acurate. It all comes down to what pulls your chain, what you can afford etc. One thing the Glock has going for it over the Ruger is the larger mag capacity if you are will to pay the extremly high prices these mags now command. Or you might find an older Glock with a few standard capacity mags. When it comes to durablity you couldn't have picked two better guns. 9x45 says he has 70k through his Glock. There are certainly few people that will every shoot that many rounds of ammo through one gun. I have a P89 Ruger that I shoot maybe 1000 rounds a month, though I am way under 70k. Unless you get a lemon, you will never wear out either gun as long as you maintain the gun including changing your recoil spring on a regular basis.
Back to the original topic at hand, if I was making the choice, I would buy the Ruger.
