dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
There's lots of Glock fanbois around, too. So? Ruger makes a good gun. What's the problem?
-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
Shield vs SR9c
- Thread starter Northeastamstaffs
- Start date
There's lots of Glock fanbois around, too. So? Ruger makes a good gun. What's the problem?
dcmdon
NES Member
A better reason is that the G26 is way more space/capacity efficient than the SR9c is. The SR9C is a good gun, but for what it's supposed to be, it's kind of ****ing gigantic.This is the reason why Glock can cell a gun design that is like 10+ years old and still be successful at it, nobody has matched their size/capacity metrics in several different classes of guns.
-Mike
I'm not so sure I agree with that when you are tallking about free states. The grip and reach of the SR9 is pretty great considering it holds 17 rounds. But there's the problem in MA. Its neutered. You get nothing for that extra size. At least with a glock, you don't have a mag thats only about 60% of its design capacity.
dcmdon
NES Member
Nothing. Ruger makes a great gun. But the simple fact is that in MA, you are buying a gun sized to hold 15 rounds that only holds 10.
If you get a Glock, your 15 round gun can at least hold 15 rounds.
If this were CT, it would be a toss up.
I know the glocks are more favored, but I've never ever had any semi-auto Ruger fail in any way on me.
I don't have nearly the rounds downrange with Rugers as I do with Glocks, but I'd say in general that both are exceedingly reliable.
So again, its the MA specific restrictions on the Ruger that make the Glock attractive to me in a double stack gun.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
Don't recall seeing anyone getting "butt hurt" in this thread, just asking for clarification when someone claimed the Shield was a "superior firearm". You are correct that the Ruger is not the end all be all hangun, but it is VERY hard to beat for that price range, and no one can deny that. It's a whole lot of nice features at a very moderate price - especially when compared to the M&P offerings.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
I agree, and that is why I don't have one yet. Every one that I have seen for sale has been in the $600+ range, and for that price there are better choices for hand guns inmo. You're right, it's not quite "twice" the price, but close enough that you could buy a LOT of practice ammo, or another cheaper gun with the difference, and honestly don't see the Glock as being that much better for the extra cost. Without the MA surcharge, they are definitely a fine choice for CCW, though.
Don't recall seeing anyone getting "butt hurt" in this thread, just asking for clarification when someone claimed the Shield was a "superior firearm". You are correct that the Ruger is not the end all be all hangun, but it is VERY hard to beat for that price range, and no one can deny that. It's a whole lot of nice features at a very moderate price - especially when compared to the M&P offerings.
I think some are not comparing apples and apples price-wise.
The Shield is going for $390-400 and the SR9c goes for $400. Comparing prices using the FS/Compact M&P pricing isn't a fair comparison.
I generally find the Ruger line of handguns very "blocky", however the SR9 and SR9c are very different and comfortable shooters (I own both). They were the first Rugers that interested me (other than the MKIII 22/45 bought for training purposes).
I got to dry-fire the Shield at FS last month and it felt pretty decent and I'll bet it will be after a trigger job!
I own and love my M&Ps (FS and Compact) and all of them have trigger jobs (a requirement IMNSHO).
Glocks just don't fit my hands comfortably so the ones we own are used exclusively for training purposes.
Ugh butthurt central here. The SR9c is bulky because of the weight of the slide. It is a solid gun and has had zero issues whereas my Gen4 G19 gave me 2 FTF. The G26 is a great gun too and is lighter than the SR9c and has a better capacity , but just buy both when you have the money. Ruger makes an excellent gun and some people don't want to jump hoops just to find a new G26 and have to pay $650 for a pre 98 beat to death gun. Sure Glocks are meant to run forever but I wouldn't buy a old Glock just because that's the way I am.
The SR9c can still hold 17rds with the full size magazine, if you want to risk a felony you can bring one into MA. I am not advocating that but saying it for sake of argument. The Shield is thinner but who knows how theyll perform over time. The SR series is a Glock in the mirror internally and run incredible. I hate the word fanboy. I just buy what I like and shoot well. People are such pussies sometimes
The SR9c can still hold 17rds with the full size magazine, if you want to risk a felony you can bring one into MA. I am not advocating that but saying it for sake of argument. The Shield is thinner but who knows how theyll perform over time. The SR series is a Glock in the mirror internally and run incredible. I hate the word fanboy. I just buy what I like and shoot well. People are such pussies sometimes
Last edited:
dcmdon
NES Member
The SR9c can still hold 17rds if you have a free state model and if you want to risk a felony you can bring one into MA. I am not advocating that but saying it for sake of argument.
You don't need a different gun. Just a standard capacity (17 round) mag. Remember that in almost the entire rest of the country, magazines are less regulated than milk.
If you choose to use an illegal 17 rd mag in your SR9, its simply a matter of driving to a gun shop in VT, NH or CT and buying one.
I don't see the point in taking the risk. Especially when non drop free U notch Glock mags are so cheap.
Don
blindndead
NES Member
The Ruger is going to have a much better trigger out of the box, And that was a huge selling point on my decision to get the sr9c. Love that gun.
I sure wish they were. Everywhere Ive been looking I'm seeing 45 and up, those things are crap!
And to the point, but what feels most comfortable to you. The blocks, m&p compact, and the sr9c are all proven pistols now. Im sure in time the shield will prove its worth as well.
Sorry, I meant to say if you live in a free state. All you need is the grip sleeve on the full size mag, yup!
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Never said it was.
However, the OP specifically asked about Shield vs SR9c. Some people don't like buying used guns. Some don't like spending the $200+ MA penalty. Some people get annoyed when instead of answering the question responders go off and beat the drums for THEIR particular favorite (and Glock fans are notorious for this; they're almost as bad as Apple fans!). And some simply don't like Glock (like LenS) - count me as another person that the Glock grip doesn't fit.
But I didn't see anyone getting "butt-hurt"; I saw some good reasons for not buying a Glock, though.
dcmdon
NES Member
Having gone through several guns while trying to find the right carry gun(s), I can tell you that you should get what you want. Buy once, cry once.
With that said, I'm a single stack fan. I'm a wuss when it comes to carrying bulky heavy guns. I have a gorgeous Nighthawk Custom Talon II lightweight bobtail, and it never gets carried.
My 340 is so short and so light that in an OWB pancake holster it is both discreet and comfortable. My Kahr P9 has been my other daily carry gun. Its heavier, but allows for quick reloads and less muzzle flash.
Don
dcmdon
NES Member
U groove mags aren't crap. In fact, for many people they are better off with them.
A U groove mag won't pop out if the mag release is accidentally pressed. As a lefty, I've had this a couple of times shooting IDPA with my 34 and my drop free mags drop clear of the gun.
You should be practicing to strip the mag from the gun anyway, depending on gravity is foolish.
No they don't reload as fast
No they don't last as long, but for a carry mag, they are the best choice for some people.
I recently purchased 4 U groove G 22 mags for $130 on GB. I don't think I stole them. Maybe I just got lucky.
- Joined
- Sep 6, 2012
- Messages
- 61
- Likes
- 12
Great advice by everyone..... more confused now than before... lol I like the smaller, lighter weight of the shield and it would i imagine be a little easier as a CCW. The shield shoots pretty well, accurate from what I've read, trigger not the best. The SR9c definately heavier and bigger than the shield, I've held both. The SR9c by all reviews is a very nice gun, very good trigger and a decent CCW. I did also hold the M&P 9c, however it was not comfortable in my hand. I am planning a trip to Hoffmans gun in Ct, they have an indoor range where you can rent guns. They have the SR9c, m&p 9c and noncompliant mass shield ( so trigger will be different). I am trying to stay within a budget around $400.00. thanks again guys for the advice and info. Jerry
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
Jerry, please update this thread when you do get to try them all in the same setting. I will be very interested in seeing your choice. Also consider that, although the shield may be a bit easier to conceal, it may not be the best choice as an "all around" gun if you only have the budget for 1 pistol right now. Small carry guns are very rarely fun range guns, and you sometimes give up a bit of accuracy with the small ones as well, which is fine for CQB application, but really sucks when you are trying to get good groupings at any decent distance. I personally enjoy carrying my BG380 much more than my SR9c because it is so thin, and light compared to the SR, but there is a HUGE difference in how well I can shoot with them! The BG has it's place for when I am wearing light clothes and need a smaller, lighter carry, but if I could only have 1 carry gun that one would definitely NOT be my choice! Do take that into consideration when you are trying them out. Smaller is not always better with guns.
dcmdon
NES Member
Hah. I completely missed that he was a new LTC holder.
Get yourself a M&P .22 and a couple of extra mags. Then practice, practice, practice.
The SR9C is not a bad range gun. With WWB or Blazer recoil is pretty tame, and its accurate enough to be satisfying.
i don't personally know about the shield.
In single stack 9mm I'm partial to the Kahr. The P9 has very reasonable recoil and is fun to shoot at the range. But thats just me.
Get yourself a M&P .22 and a couple of extra mags. Then practice, practice, practice.
The SR9C is not a bad range gun. With WWB or Blazer recoil is pretty tame, and its accurate enough to be satisfying.
i don't personally know about the shield.
In single stack 9mm I'm partial to the Kahr. The P9 has very reasonable recoil and is fun to shoot at the range. But thats just me.
I never told the OP to buy a Glock.
Recent threads have Ruger owners trying there damnedest to justify their purchases. Hence my butt hurt comment.
I own both and I never thought the SR trigger was anything special. Sorry. Between the two guns, I'd stuck with the M&P line. The new Shields and Fullsize/compact supposedly have a new trigger even in MA. I'm sure the weight still sucks but the reset and pull are supposed to be better. I was told the 45 would have the new trigger in 8 months. That's according to SW's LE rep.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Here's my justification: I like it.
Obviously, you're someone that the Shield fits. As I said earlier, right up until I held it in my hands I was going to buy one. Not anymore. Eh. That's why manufacturers make lots of different guns.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
Do you mean "PM9", or is the P9 something different? If it's the PM9, I have been looking at/considering trading in my BG for one of those.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
I'd buy it even if we did have new Glocks available in this state. Now, if I could have gotten a Springfield EMP... that's very different.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
I agree with you, but to be honest it is mainly because the Glock would still be more expensive even without the MA premium than the Ruger with no clear advantage in features, or quality. Sure some will say "it can take pre-ban high caps", but for a carry gun, this doesn't matter to me since anything over 10 rounds is too heavy anyway inmo. If I need/want more capacity, it is easier to carry a spare mag, then have all the extra weight and length in one place.
I'm actually in a similar debate for my carry gun. I was all for the shield until I got my M&P9 with a trigger job and still hated it (since replaced with a Beretta 92FS - love). Now I can't even fathom a shield on the even remote chance it's like the M&P9. Now I'm between a G26 and the SR9C. Neither one is as slim as I'd like really. Being a lady, a slim gun is pretty relevant in the decision making progress. Not a HUGE Glock fan but I know they're reliable and all, just not the right feel in my hands.
dwarven1
Lonely Mountain Arms
Have you looked at the Walther PPS or the Ruger LC9? Both pretty slim, although you'll probably want a trigger job on the LC9 - the trigger sucks.
If you can find one in MA, the Keltec P32 is pretty slim, too, as is the PF9.
Trying to stick with a 9mm round over the .380 otherwise I would be very interested in the Lc9 or even a P238 would have been ideal (I'm a sucker for a good sig... if I had the dough that is).
