Ruger SR9 or Glock 17?

N

nodule

New member
Trying to decide between these 2 9mm pistols. Despite what so many others say, BOTH the Glock and the SR9 felt fine in my hands.

Just wondering if the SR9 will prove to be a long term durable pistol that will last a lifetime?

Who here either owns BOTH, or has handled and fired BOTH?

Thanks!
 
Owned both an SR9C and Gen 4 Glock 17 (along with multiple 19's). Never had any major problem with either of them, and although I like the stock trigger and the general in-hand feel of the SR-series better, range results always favored the Glock(s) for me.

My apologies for being so quick and vague, in a terrible service area at present time.
 
I have had an SR9c for years that has been flawless. I have shot thousands of rounds through it in all sorts of conditions, and done nothing but keep it clean and lubed. Good trigger, accurate, dependable. I carry it just about every day. I have several friends who have them as a result of my experience and the only complaint is the white dot on the front sight of one, wasn't white. A little white paint fixed it, although I'm​ sure Ruger would have taken care of it if asked.

I like the external thumb safety and the loaded round indicator on my SR. Others here would not own one because of these things. Glock makes fine pistols. You can't go wrong either way.
 
I haven't owned the full size SR9 or the Glock 19. I do own an SR40C, and have owned a Glock 26, 27, 17, and 30.

I think it is more fair to compare the SR9 to the Glock 17, because they're more the same size. The Glock 19 is more compact.

To sum things up, I currently own 0 Glocks. I have the Ruger SR40C which I carry quite a bit. I shoot the Ruger better and like it's trigger considerably more. I do not use the safety and it's stiff enough that I do not worry about it accidentally getting flipped on.

The Glock options are lighter. They have more accessories. I do not shoot them well. I like the simplicity of them.

I haven't shot a lot through my SR40C yet but it seems like a well built gun. Glock obviously has a proven track record.

If you plan on maybe carrying it, I would go with the 19. If not, i would go with the SR9.

Sent from my SM-G930R4 using Tapatalk
 
For me, Glock 17 all day long between these 2. It's one of the most proven handguns of all time while the Ruger never really gained much traction and isn't really the flagship pistol for Ruger now anyway. Just my take.
 
Simple try them both and the one that feels and shoots the best is the one to buy, I don't like the glock grip myself. Sold the one I had
 
Used to be strictly a hammer fired guy. That changed with the Glocks that I now have. Didn't have any until 2 years ago. Now I have 5 with all kinds of upgrades and conversion barrels. First thing that sold me was reliability. Second, was the availability of inexpensive OEM and aftermarket parts.

Let's put it this way, there is a good reason why the SR9 is typically $100 to $125 less than a G17, and it sure as hell ain't the way the SR9 looks so much prettier than the G17. It's about the track record...
 
I've owned 3 SR series handguns, and fired countless glocks, a few 17s among them. I would recommend the SR9 unless you are planning on putting 100,000 rounds through it. even if you completely wear it out, Ruger will replace everything inside. I recently bought a goobered SR45 secondhand that was a nightmare and Ruger replaced everything but the slide and frame and even gave me back a spare magazine for my trouble. I was impressed. the only thing to be concerned about is the magazine safety which prevents the gun from firing without a magazine inserted can cause light strike issues if the magazine is not firmly inserted. I remove the mag safety from all of my SR handguns, one out of necessity, the other 2 out of distrust for the design. the removal is simple and can be accomplished in under 5 minutes. I think for the $150 you save over the glock that little headache is more than worth it, and might not even be a concern for you.
 
I once used a Glock 17 for a match gun, but if I had to buy either one today, it would be the Ruger.
I've never been a big Ruger fan, but they got that one right, especially for a striker fired design.
 
I have used the SR9 some and own a g23 currently. These are the main differences, imo...

Both are good combat precision guns. Both have decent, not great mags, with a slight edge to Ruger for a slick metal body. Both have decent, not great stock sights. Both have a decent stock trigger.

Ruger
+ usable thumb safety
+ more ergonomic grip shape and angle
+ better grip texture, especially with cold, dry or slick hands
+ better price typically

Glock
+/- more field record, but that brings many ND's
+ more aftermarket options
+ more holster options

This would be a hard decision for me that price and intangibles would make. I bought the Glock. Wanted to see what all the talk was about. Price was outstanding.
 
Flip a coin! I own both and no issues. I have the SR-9c and the Glock 26 and both are fine smaller companions to their full size brothers.

As for me I'd probably give the nod to the Glock as I have more of them and as someone said more aftermarket for the Glock. Not knocking the Ruger in anyway saying that I have been very pleased with my SR-9.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top