ruger sr9 or sr9c

G

goochster

New member
I have been doing as much research as possible but need a little advice from users. Currently I shoot 9mm hi-point c9 and also cc that beast(sob holder).
I reload and have been very accurate with the c9. My biggest complaint is breakdown for cleaning therefore I will retire it for one of the rugers. I haven't found anyplace to rent one to shoot but have handled both models. The 9c spring seems a lot stiffer than the sr9. I do range as well as ccw but would eventually like to join a club that does matches. My main question is going to be will the sr9 be as accurate as the sr9c and would both handle the loads. I usually shoot 90grn xpt with 4.4 grns BE. 115gr LRN with 4.5grns BE or 4.8 grns unique.
 
If carry is a concern, I'd go with the SR9C. If you are more concerned with accuracy and not as concerned about ease of concealment, go with the SR9 as the full sized gun would be easier to shoot accurately everything else being equal.
 
that what I've been thinking, thanks
my shop has the 9c for 399 and the sr9 for 429 so I was leaning to the full size.
thanks
again
 
I shoot a 5cc Lee dipper scoop of Bullseye in my loads. This translates into 4.7 to 4.8 grains of powder pushing a 124 grain, powder coated, smallball lead bullets from Missouri bullets, at a very respectable clip. I seat them at 1.125 to match the Lee Version two book. This load is a hard driving hammering load for the 9mm. The Ruger 9e I have handles it PERFECTLY. Light recoil, fast acquisition on follow ups, and extremely accurate. It leads just a touch due to the velocity but, 3 or 4 Shooters Choice dipped, brass brush strokes, after a couple hundred rounds and, the bore is shiny clean again. This is a great gun and, the coated small ball with the 5cc dipper is a great bullet and upper tier load for my gun.

I just wanted to try the bullets at that range and intend to back it down to about 4 grains, where I could shoot literally a thousand rounds before cleaning, just to save powder on plinking loads.

The full size version is not hard to conceal. But, as stated, harder than the SR9c with the inside the handle magazine. When the extended clip is in the SR9c, it is the same gun as the SR9. If I were going to buy one of these, I'd buy the full size version myself. I really like these guns. God Bless
 
I've tried both and really couldn't tell much difference.
But it was at the range, and didn't involve carrying them concealed.
About like a full sized 1911 vs a Commander.
Didn't seem enough difference between them to matter, relatively.
I'm convinced that if the small difference in distance between the sights on a handgun matter, it's more about the sights than the barrel length.
Up until the most recent versions, the compact had a better trigger, for some reason.
If you decide on the full sized, make sure the mag release is a D shaped, rather than round.
Those have the same excellent trigger, (for a striker), as the compact.
 
Last edited:
A compact pistol is a compromise between a full size and subcompact -- a bit easier to conceal and carry, and a bit less precise and comfortable to shoot. Because you regard your current piece as a beast, it sounds like you would prefer the compact Ruger, but the full-size version will still be an improvement carry-wise if you go that route. You can compete with a compact -- those shooting full-size pistols may have an edge, but there is an argument to be made for competing with one's carry piece.

If competition is your most valued use, buy the SR9; if carry is your most valued use, buy the SR9c; if you want an all-around pistol, buy the SR9c.
 
I'd say that the compact will fit your described needs better. The ones I have seen come with both a 10 round and a 17 round magazine, so you can use the 10 for carry and the 17 for extra capacity/stability at the range or in competition. More versatility is always a good thing in my book.
 
I was trying to make the same decision about 7 or 8 years ago. You have already handled them so I would think that it would depend on if you are going to use it as a CC and just how you intend to carry. I wavered for a few weeks and kept going back to the LGS to look and handle. When laying the SR9 and the SR9c side by side, I didn't see a big enough difference to really matter for my purposes. I ended up with the SR9. I don't carry it all the time (I usually carry my Smith Model 36 snub) but when I do, it's on the belt. It easily covers up with a shirt tail and doesn't print. But, I am retired and usually dressed in jeans and a denim shirt so . . . .

I reload as well. My SR9 is plenty accurate and functions fine with a lead RN from a Lyman 358-242 mold (120 is gr.) as well as a TC lead from a Lee 356-120 TC mold. I put both of them over 3.5 gr. of Bullseye which is right around the "starting load". Both of my Lyman Cast Bullet Handbooks list the max load of BE under a 120 gr. lead bullet as 4.4 grains. For a 115 gr. lead, they list a max. of 4.9 grains of BE.

So, my question is . . . why are you loading at "max" or a tenth of a grain under? If you get a SR9 or SR9c, you're going to have to work up a load which works best out of "your" individual handgun. That will include slugging your barrel to see what diameter your lead should be, etc. If the loads you are using is what works best out of the handgun you now have . . . then I'm assuming you've worked up your load in the usual manner from "starting low and working up".

I can only go on how my SR9 shoots - which is very well . . . and I doubt you'd see much difference between the SR9 and SR9c . . . but with my particular SR9, with the 120is gr. lead bullets I use, the 3.5 gives good accuracy, the pistol functions without a flaw and is accurate at the ranges I shoot.
 
Spring in the sr9c

yes I was working up loads. The problem I had was with 125gr LRN cast bullets by acme. They would tumble. I shoot all new loads at a piece of 3/4 plywood to eliminate target problems. I was getting perfectly shaped bullets, I could drop a loose bullet right into the hole. The increase of powder, and I moved by 1/10 up in groups of 5 finally straightened out the round and got quite accurate.
bad.jpg

see the tumbles?
lead.jpg

then the 90grn XPT
xptGOOD.jpg

the 4 in the red was the final load at 4.4BE with one in the black because of the excitement!!

One last question on the sr9 or 9c, The spring feels real heavy on the 9c, I even got a pinch once racking it where the 9 seem less. Will that hard spring go away? Also the 9c I found out was used and returned. The shop said the guy only shot a few rounds but he just didn't like it. And between you and me I never found anyone that didn't like the rugers!
 
That would be a good reason! :)

On the lead bullets . . . if you can get a few .357 - I wonder if you'd have the tumbling problem? You don't mention any leading problems so the .356 must be going down the pipe O.K. without leaving any behind? In most cases, tumbling is caused by poor bullet to bore fit. If I'm interpreting correctly . . . stepping up the powder and thus the FPS took care of that?

As you already know, every handgun is different and likes different things. In my SR9, I've been using the 120 is gr. RN from the Lyman 358-242 "as dropped" - which is right around .358. All depends on what I'm casting from as I only use "range lead" and that can vary from batch to bat. If over .358 I size down to .358. But . . . that's in my SR9. On cast (lead) I like to be .002 over bore size if the cartridge will chamber correctly. All I load is cast in pistol and rifle - I haven't a clue on the plated once.

I can't answer your question on the spring stiffness. When I first got my SR9, the spring was pretty stiff and it was on the hard side to rack the slide. That seems to have gotten better over time and rounds through her. Plus, I'm pretty much a revolver guy and some excellent training I got in some classes from "pros" (LEO, former Spec. Ops. Military and S.W.A.T. members who were the instructors) helped me greatly in a lot of areas in using a semi-auto - including "racking", hold, etc. - I always learn something new and i enjoy taking SD classes whenever I can.

When I was looking, I remember that I didn't care for the shorter grip on the Src - but that's just my hands I think. Had I gotten the SR9c, I'm sure that I would have adapted.

I have no problems buying vintage/used revolvers. I have had a number of semi-autos - only two were "used". One was a Colt 1911A1 that was given to me in 1964 - brought back by a Navy Pilot after WWII. It was "mint' with the original holster, clips, belt, mags., etc. I ended up selling it as it was just too nice - a collector bought it and I doubt that it had more than a couple hundred rounds though it. The other was a Bersa Thunder .380 CC - nice shooter and reliable but the previous owner had done "trigger work" on it. After the first DA shot, when the gun was in SA mode the trigger pull was so light that I got a number of double shots without intending to at the range. Not good for a SD piece - so I quickly returned it.

I have a complex when it comes to buying "used" semi-autos. I always wonder if the "owner didn't like it" or if there was a reliability issue? The one thing about the Ruger . . . if you bought the SR9c and there was an "issue" with it - Ruger is good about customer service and taking care of it.

Good luck whichever way you go and let us know what you end up with! :)
 
yes, stepping up the powder did straighten out the round. I have reloaded revolvers in the past and usually always worked about the bottom 1/3 of the load range. Having to work towards the higher end always concerns me.
I'm really thinking it is the lead bullets because the jacketed seem to fly real good. Think I'll pick up some jacketed 120gr and try them out.
Thanks for all the suggestions.
Phil
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top