Cheesewhiz":4kxswbu6 said:
So Jon, you are saying that Ruger's semi-auto pistol designs are basically going backwards.
Cheesewhiz-I wasn't EXACTLY saying that, but it's an interesting discussion point. The P85/P89 series were produced under the august eye and with strong input throughout by William Ruger-and his intentions as I interpret them were to produce a 9mm combat handgun with the dual mission of winning the DoD/JSSP pistol trial, and becoming the pistol of issue for the US armed forces, and concurrently to produce an extremely rugged and utilitarian 9mm pistol for the commercial market at an extremely competitive price point.
As such, and particularly for the armed forces trials, the gun was, in the terms of one of the project's engineers, "grossly over-engineered." The gun was intended to have an overwhelming performance advantage, particularly in durability and reliability over any of the potential competitors at the time, and to achieve it with any forseeable 9mm military and/or commercial cartridge, throughout a broad spectrum of adverse (and testable) environments. I've heard from a source that I consider to be very reliable that the P85s submitted for the XM10 testing passed with flying colors-but that the test was Beretta's to lose (given that they had passed the XM9 tests, and were already issued and integrated into the DoD logistical system)-which Beretta didn't do. Subsequently, the only military organization that I'm personally knowledgeable of that adopted the P85 organizationally as an issue sidearm was (and I believe still is) the Israeli Air Force.
Subsequent P-series guns such as the P90 and P91 were basically modifications of the P85 platform for different cartridges (with the P90 requiring more component upscaling), and the P94/P944 were further refinement of the platform, incorporating both cosmetic and engineering refinements and upgrades. The P85 Mk II formalized the modified safety system provided as an ad-hoc upgrade to the earlier P85s, and the P89 incorporated both changes adopted for the DoD XM10 trials and other ongoing engineering incrimental changes (along with being the basic marketing platform for the decocker and DAO varients).
The P95 and P97 introduced both the polymer frame and concurrently (and necessarily, from an engineering standpoint) the camblock system.
The P91 was obseleted by the P94 platform, and fairly quickly discontinued. I also suspect that the P944 provided a much more significantly re-engineered platform capable of greater triggerpull smoothness, durability and reliability (particularly in the long term) than the P91. In fairness to the P91, several years ago Coffeepot stated that the P91 was merely a victim of timing and marketing, and was discontinued due to overlapping/competing with the P944, as opposed to the P91 possesing any intrinsic flaws.
The P97 was obseleted by the P345, and discontinued subsequent to the latter guns fielding, and the P89 by the combination of the P95 and the SR9, and discontinued shortly after the introduction of the SR9 (arguably, in my personal opinion, prematurely).
In one sense, the current production Ruger P-series pistols are more resource efficient, using less material than their earlier predecessors, and being more ergonomic/having more ergonomic adjustments provided (such as the reversable backstrap fillet on the SR9, for example). I believe that they are also significently less expensive to produce, especially regarding their molded polymer receivers (compared to aluminum receivers).
I believe that the P85/P89/P90 series guns were built to a forecasted organizational lifespan of 20,000 - 25,000 rounds, at which time statistically it would be viewed as more organizationally efficient to replace them (as opposed to individually piecemeal maintaining/repairing/systemmically replacing parts). Realistically, I believe that their lifespan was far greater than 20,000-25,000 rounds-Coffeepot has related that some public ranges had guns in excess of 70K rounds that were loose, but still quite functional. Interestingly, the P85/P89 series is one of the few guns produced with a "lifetime" recoil spring, with no specified/necessary replacement interval. My personal feeling is that the current production polymer-frame P-Series guns will certainly perform acceptably within their forecasted lifespans, but do not possess the over-engineering necessary for them to significantly exceed these parameters to the extent that the P85/P89/P90 (and possibly the P97) are capable, and demonstrated capable of. Whether this is of any real-world significance to the organizational or individual end-user is of course the key question-and if Ruger sees it desirable (and commercially viable) to continue to produce such more resource- and manufacturing-intensive pistols.
I am critical of the SR9, in that it was the first Ruger designed and produced P-Series gun without the benefit of William Ruger's oversight and direction. I think that it is more of a committee-designed gun, and an amalgamation of a Glock action system, a Ruger camblock recoil management system, and a 1911 frame ergonomics, all to be accomplished at a desired price point. Unfortunately, the gun by many reports has had design and material flaws (which many have been addressed and corrected, in all fairness). Unfortunately, it's major competitor is arguably the Glock 17, which is widely (and I feel accurately) regarded as the gold standard of fielded 9mm combat pistols, with a superb reputation in the field by a wide spectrum of users in a wide spectrum of operational environments and usage levels.
For the SR9 to be successful in capturing other than existing Ruger users, it must be "better"-which translates to me as having better ergonomics, better reliability/durability/necessary accuracy, and a better price point. Given the Glock's stature and marketplace/organizational penetration, with all other factors presumably being equal (or at least competitively acceptable), price point becomes key. Unfortunately, at best the SR9 achieves a tenuous parity here commercially, and realistically, given Glock's Homeland Defender and GSSF purchase programs, it falls behind badly, in my opinion.
So-that's a VERY long-winded answer to your query. My personal preferences currently are towards the P89 in a DA/SA metal-receivered 9mm pistol, and Glocks in a polymer-receivered gun, over the current Ruger P-Series polymer-frame offerings.
Best, Jon
