RugerForum.com

[Guppy]

I tried the fire control housing from my SR-9C in my older V1.1 SR-9 and if fit like a glove. It looks like the newer 1.2 housing from the 9C holds the disconnector at a slighlty different position, allowing the trigger to come back further. This allows the trigger to be in a more vertical position when firing vice being slightly forward. The trigger is more like this | instead of this like this \. The difference is small, but it is there and much easier to shoot as the slightly forward trigger tends to bounce the gun in the vertical plane.

I have ordered the ire control housing from ruger SR-9C part number 212-100 and will post once they arrive and the V1.2 upgrades are installed in my SR9's.

[jhearne]

Be good to have options to have for modifications, but have you actually live fired the gun? Keep us posted on the progress! (pics for visual comparison in the SR9?)

Josh
_________________
SR9 How-To ... SR9/c Mods and Accessories ... My YouTube Channel for How-To Videos
I am a Zipperhead

[89grand]

Haven't you heard that all SR9's, and probably all Rugers in general are complete junk? This "Ruger" board is infested with those that say that.

My Rugers seem fine, but I'm sure they're not.
_________________
Ruger SR9 V1.2, KP944, 10/22 Carbine, K10/22-22

[ArmedinAZ]

[Guppy]

The V 1.2 allows for a slightly longer trigger travel before releasing. This allows the striker to get a bit better whack at the primer. The V1.2 fire control housing from my SR9C worked perfectly in my SR9 serial #331-01XXX.

I did have light primer strikes, but that is due to my tinkering with the striker spring, not the housing. I did cut my striker springs but have a few on hand. I cut the spring to 1/32" past the end of the plastic striker spring shaft with spring cup on it. If you cut the striker spring shorter than the striker shaft with the cup mounted you will have light primer strikes.

[agentadam]

It seems weird that pulling the striker even further back would lighten or smooth the trigger pull but that is essentially what the modified angle on a 3.5#(Ghost) connector does. I am wondering if using a 1.2 housing in a 1.1 with the Ghost 3.5# connector will will further improve the trigger. Ruger may have already modified the angle of the blade on the factory connector also.

I know they don't want you to tinker with it as a ruger rep stated that the new 1.2 fire control group housing " might or might not fit older(1.1) guns but might be an unsafe condition." I don't know if they changed the trigger bar geometry or what.

I would like to know how much the new housing cost and if all of the older 1.1 parts fit the new housing when you get it.

If the trigger doesn't go back as far forward with the new 1.2 trigger group does that mean the reset is shorter also and less overtravel after the break?

[Guppy]

Well I got the new fire control housings in the mail. After a detailed side by side fully stripped compairison it ain't the housing. They are the dead bang the same as the ones in my 9c and SR9's serials 330-xxxxx and 331-xxxxx.

I did a full teardown and compairison of all parts the only difference is the trigger bar. The angles and length on the 9C trigger bar are fractionally different, a few hundreths a slightly different curve..... it is almost hard to see the difference, but it is there.

I modded my SR9 v1.1 trigger bars and flattened the curve such that the trigger comes back further and is closer to vertical at release. I can't explain how to do it a picture would not help as the differences are very small. It is kind of an art and would be pretty easy to screw up. I suspect the easy route is to order the 9c trigger bar polish and install.

After all of the work my triggers are all at or just below 5lbs. This is as low as I have been able to get without misfires. I rounded the contour of my triggers. The trigger is well to the rear in the guard and almost vertical at release, and is very crisp, which allows good control. I may be able to get the trigger down to 4 to 4.5 lbs reliably by working with the striker springs, but after my last range outings and misfires I am loath to try right now.

I really like these guns to the point that I am have not played with my other handguns. Perfect fit, flat, low bore axis, concealable, easy to shoot fast, and dead bang reliable provided you do not muck with the springs too much. The only flys in the ointment are the stock trigger is horrible, and the sights should span the length of the slide instead of giving up so much sight radius.......

I am off to the range here in a few and will report how it goes.

[Guppy]

In short it shoots fantastically. After years of trying different handguns I think I may have found the one that works for me...............

Easy to shoot. Light recoiling and very fast due to the low bore axis. A thin comfortable grip like a 1911. A thumb actuated safety so you don't shoot yourself reholstering. Super easy to conceal with 18 rounds of hot 9mm on board. It is so easy to conceal I carry a full size, the compact sits in the safe most of the time. It is also dead bang reliable. The only issues are the trigger and sights. Between the trigger job and the new williams adjustable fire sights those issues are fixed.

After shooting yesterday my friend handed me his for a full going over........ I am waiting for my best friend to return from deployment so that I can thrash him at the range. I am so tired of him humming glock uber ales continually...........

[ArmedinAZ]

Love to see some targets. There was a striker gun match last month just so you SR9 guys could show your (and your guns) stuff. Nobody came off the porch.

Think you could thrash a 95 year old German striker gun?
_________________
RugerForum July striker pistol match results:

1st- Springfield XD40
2nd- Mauser 1914 - peoples choice!
3rd- Glock 19C
Absent- any SR9(c)??

[Guppy]

Err is this a postal match or on premesis? I would not mind..... Might go inline with my next project 147 powder puff 125 pf loads.

Might shoot some IDPA tomorrow though.

[ArmedinAZ]