Rick Courtright
Hawkeye
kbm6893 said:And those who do rarely fire their weapons, so the perceived superiority of Glock is nothing more than internet marketing. And if Ruger had beaten Glock to the punch back in the late 80's and basically given away weapons to police departments, they might have had the monopoly that Glock has now.
But until then, the Glock and the SR9 are essentially the same thing. Mass produced striker fired weapons that launch a bullet when they need to. Neither one is that superior to the other.
Hi,
I don't really have a dog in this fight, as Mr. Fifer, in a moment of inspired wisdom, pulled all the Ruger auto pistols off the CA market, including the Mk III .22s. Fortunately, a CZ-75B 9mm with an added Kadet .22 conversion has kept me quite happy. And I can still get a boatload of guns from other mfrs to duplicate just about anything I couldn't get new from Ruger if I wanted to. Those who've followed my thoughts on Ruger's QC will understand why I said "if"...
That being said, the Internet's full of stories, many of which may or may not have actually happened, others which might have but are quite likely "enhanced" with retellings. Among them:
When Glocks were first gaining ground, there was a lot of commotion about how "plastic guns won't hold up", so a story went around that Glock put one or more of their guns thru a 500,000 round "longevity test". As I recall the chatter at the time, the gun, or guns as the case may be, went thru it and still worked fine.
I dunno if Glock really did that or not, but I've also read of a G17 used as a range rental that went ~500,000 rounds, at which time it broke a slide. That was replaced and the writer said the original frame had ~750,000 rounds when his range closed. True or not?
Anyone ever hear of such a test, by the factory or an end user, involving a Ruger center fire pistol, either a metal or a plastic one?
Rick C