I s The SR9 fixed?

[Cheesewhiz]

Most 1911's that I have seen with peened lugs were caused by poor barrel fitting or the improper use of a longer link.
The longer link in a sense could present what appears to be a timing issue. It is just that the barrel sits too high and can't pull down fast enough to disengage from the lugs in the slide.
The SR9 doesn't use a swinging link and the fit of the front of the barrel hood to the slide opening is important for the accuracy of the gun. MY SR9 has slight peening after many, many rounds but I have seen pictures of others on this forum that were far worse with less reported rounds fired.
I have shot some other SR9's, two of which were fairly new models but shot quite a bit and I didn't see any peening on those at all.

 

[revhigh]

Though the guns are manufactured in Arizona, some of the testing was done down the road from my place

OK nh, great info !! Thanks. I just wonder how Ruger could have tested tens of thousands of rounds and never noticed any issues on a 'dozen' guns or however many it was. The only thing I can conclude from your statements, which I completely believe, is that Ruger knew about it, noticed it, and hoped it wouldn't be noticed or become the issue that it has become.

I find it completely impossible to believe that Ruger, during their testing, NEVER NOTICED ANY PEENING ISSUES, yet it seems like approximately 1 in 3 here on the forum exhibit the peening, and who knows how many are doing it elsewhere. I'm sure there are MANY, MANY guns that have it in the field where it wasn't/won't be noticed because the owners are inexperienced in realizing such things.

Either way, it seems that Ruger is making things right, which they usually do, no matter how many trips back to the mother ship it takes. That's a good thing.

REV

 

[tguil]

Why when I read these posts do I think, "Just like Toyota." ?

Tom 8)

 

[Ale-8(1)]

When I read these posts I think "we're an awfully small sampling" . . .

 

[ArmedinAZ]

nhlever, thanks for explaining that you have access to some inside knowledge. You mention that you build prototypes and you think there's a timing/fitting issue with the SR9. Many here will agree and some with production experience think it's a tolerance stacking problem. Assuming all of the above to be true, and in deference to your expertise, is there no fix? It seems like Ruger knows what it takes to fix the SR9s that get sent in (mostly) so why can't that traslate into production and make the problem go away?

Some report peening after as few as 100 rounds, some after 500, 1000, even 1500. Possibly the majority never see a problem. Truth is the problem exists and it's not normal wear.

Is it possible that Ruger knows the tolerances needed to make a "good" SR9 but are committed to the tooling and are OK with the return rate?

 

[revhigh]

Is it possible that Ruger knows the tolerances needed to make a "good" SR9 but are committed to the tooling and are OK with the return rate?

Of course they know what the problem is ... but they still just send 'em out and hope they don't come back .... pretty crappy motto as far as I'm concerned ... now it seems like the C's are involved as well, which doesn't surprise me a bit ... they never fixed the underlying cause .... must be an expensive issue from a manufacturing POV.

REV

 

[revhigh]

When I read these posts I think "we're an awfully small sampling" . . .

It was a small sampling that predicted Scott Brown would win in Mass, too !!! Look what happened ...

REV

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Man, talk about a stretch . . .

:roll:

 

[Cheesewhiz]

When I read these posts I think "we're an awfully small sampling" . . .

Man, talk about a stretch . . .

:roll:

See Ale-8, you're aren't getting with the program here. The SR9 sucks and it's all Ruger's fault because the SR9 sucks.
Glocks are the greatest pistols ever made, if one of those blows up it's an owner/operator fault and the good ego maniac Doctor is excused.
I even saw the one guy on this forum that waxed poetic about the simple beauty of the Glock trigger, I believe his pants may have been around his ankles at the time.

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Gotcha!

Thanks!

 

[revhigh]

I even saw the one guy on this forum that waxed poetic about the simple beauty of the Glock trigger,

Now THAT would certainly be a stretch, their guns work pretty good, but to say that a Glock trigger is good, compared to GOOD triggers (like 1911 triggers) .... is just ludicrous.

REV

 

[nhlever]

I've been known to say that some things succeed "because of the way they were designed, and in spite of the way they are made." CNC machines are only as good as the tooling that holds, and locates the parts, and assembly is only as good as the understanding, and training of the folks that put them together. There are many Mexican immigrants working at Ruger's plant in Arizona the way I understand it, and though they are honest, and very hard working folks they don't have the understanding of how pistols should work that many of us do, and language barriers make thorough training more difficult. It is the same problem that industry throughout the country has today. Until recently, Ruger was a straight incentive, or "piecework" company. Folks were paid for the number of parts produced period. That works well when it is well supervised, and has checks, and balances for quality, but sometimes falls down a bit when folks have to decide between a paycheck, and quality.

All the factors mentioned in this thread contribute to this particular issue, and the trick for Ruger will be to find those numbers that consistantly work, and design gaging to make sure that the tolerance stack up will not produce this result. Companies in general, and Ruger too sometimes check individual parts, and operations quite carefully, and you would be surprised at the amount of money they put into gaging parts. Still, all "+" parts, or all "-" parts, or extremes in both directions can produce undesireable results. It then becomes an issue of designing the tooling so that the "assembled" parts are within the tolerances needed for proper function. That greatly reduces the skill required of the assemblers, and results in a more uniform product. Trust me, it is quite possible to put a part through $50,000 dollars worth of gaging, and still have assembly issues. Even tight tolerances on individual operations, and parts can stack up in the wrong places. In the "old" days we often built slave fixtures that held two, or more parts in the proper relationship while they were "qualified" together to eliminate that stack up. With CNC machines doing so many operations at once these days that is more difficult.

The question for us is: Can we identify those guns that are going to peen before we purchase them. I think it is possible, but I also think that it may be difficult enough that it would explain guns getting through that shouldn't . Perhaps if we can find a way, then we could pass it along to ?Ruger, and save them a lot of frustration too? Let's try to do something constructive with this.......... all you semi auto guys, and gals, take a look.

 

[revhigh]

Great info nh !

I have a fair amount of manufacturing background, albeit from the software side of production and inventory control, and the general consensus has been, as you alluded to, the stacking of tolerances of certain parts, and their interraction. This seems to be the most believable theory about the cause of the peening that roughly 1/3 of the guns, at least 'here', seem to experience. I am very certain that Ruger knows exactly what is causing these problems. If they don't know, then they certainly shouldn't be producing firearms.

I don't see why they couldn't gage the areas in question, put the parts in bins marked with the +'s, -'s, or 0's, and then assemble the guns so that the stacking that causes the problems doesn't happen. That just can't be that hard to do. I know that I'm not experienced in firearms assembly lines or firearms QC, but common sense would tell you that you would find out what causes the problem, and then you wouldn't assemble the damn guns that way, right ?

The only reason that I can see why Ruger DOESN'T do the above, is that it's cheaper to 'hope people don't notice it', and roll the dice, than it is to add however many manufacturing steps are required to accomplish what I mentioned above.

That surely is an extremely short sighted view to take as a company, and even here on the forum, people are becoming very suspicious of any Ruger new releases, or even for the QC of long established problem free models .... think barrels not being screwed on properly.

I believe this lackadaisical approach to quality control is causing Ruger's reputation to become irrepairably tarnished. Look at Toyota .... from auto superstar to auto goat in a few weeks. Ruger better get their act together, because there's a lot of talk here and in the public that Rugers are starting to be no better than Tauruses, and maybe could be worse.

REV

 

[Ale-8(1)]

"I don't see why they couldn't gage the areas in question, put the parts in bins marked with the +'s, -'s, or 0's, and then assemble the guns so that the stacking that causes the problems doesn't happen."

Because that completely does away with the "mass production" of functionally identical interchangeable parts. If the parts must be separated by "size" and selectively assembled, the economy of scale is lost. If the parts will not assemble without regard to post-inspection uniformity, then there is a problem of design, manufacture, or inspection. The problem must be fixed before assembly is even attempted. Failing that, extra selective assembly would be required with resultant considerable increase labor cost for "fitting".

And based on my considerable experience with manufacturing, I'll wager the problem is not a matter of fit so much as it is material and/or heat treat. Peening is a matter of something being deformed as a result of impact, which is what happens when a bolt slams shut. The design of the parts in question needs to be examined to determine what the problem is, whether it be improper material selection or heat treat as a result of improper design or manufacture.

Frankly I do not believe the 1/3 guestimate figure, but any is too many. There is no excuse for it.

 

[nhlever]

Revhigh, We all hope that your fears don't come true. Ruger is a driving force in the industry today, and it would be very sad indeed if they don't manage to pull together some of the loose ends they have. There are lots of issues, and I wish I felt free to discuss them here, but I don't. I wish that I / we could help too since there is so much at stake for everyone. Still, the bottom line is that folks work hard for their money, and even harder to justify some of these purchases, and they are not going to keep coming back if they continue to feel burned by the experience. I have been retired for a while now, but when I went to work for Ruger there were about 70 people at the NH plant. I've seen a lot of changes, and I've left a lot of myself there so I care about as much as anyone might. I do want us to not fall into the trap of "blame based failure justification" though, and we can do that if we assume too much that the solution is easy for someone.......... anyone else. Hard to change things that have been three generations in the making in some cases.

 

[ArmedinAZ]

The SR9 sucks and it's all Ruger's fault because the SR9 sucks.

Glocks are the greatest pistols ever made, if one of those blows up it's an owner/operator fault and the good ego maniac Doctor is excused.
I even saw the one guy on this forum that waxed poetic about the simple beauty of the Glock trigger, I believe his pants may have been around his ankles at the time.

First, you are correct. Ruger designed and built the SR9 so it's successes and problems are owned by Ruger. The SR9 doesn't suck because it's a Ruger. It doesn't even suck, it has a problem either in design or execution.

Cheezy, I just looked back through THIS THREAD and the only mention of Glock was to point out that they've had problems. You seem to insist that the SR9 problem is a fabrication of Glock fanboys or something. Just not true. You obviously don't like Gaston Glock. I don't either. Forget the dreadful grip, the Glock platform is proven reliable. The SR9 is in direct comparison to this weapon, undeniably Ruger copied the Glock trigger mechanism instead of developing their own unique system. This alone would seem to justify the rep of the Glock, if not then the SR9 platform is flawed from the start right? This thread is the best discussion yet about the SR9 problem, someone actually has first hand knowledge of the situation. Nobody made it a Ruger vs Glock thing but you.

To deny a problem exists is illogical. Even in a small sampling such as this forum there are just too many similar instances to ignore. It's OK to admit there's a problem. Really. I really like Ruger, have 3 others now and look to add more BUT another SR9 is not on the list.

I bet everyone on the forum was hoping the 9C would come out of the box and be right.

And nhlever, please stick around and keep the forum informed as much as you're able.

 

[Cheesewhiz]

The SR9 sucks and it's all Ruger's fault because the SR9 sucks.

Glocks are the greatest pistols ever made, if one of those blows up it's an owner/operator fault and the good ego maniac Doctor is excused.
I even saw the one guy on this forum that waxed poetic about the simple beauty of the Glock trigger, I believe his pants may have been around his ankles at the time.

First, you are correct. Ruger designed and built the SR9 so it's successes and problems are owned by Ruger. The SR9 doesn't suck because it's a Ruger. It doesn't even suck, it has a problem either in design or execution.

Cheezy, I just looked back through THIS THREAD and the only mention of Glock was to point out that they've had problems. You seem to insist that the SR9 problem is a fabrication of Glock fanboys or something. Just not true. You obviously don't like Gaston Glock. I don't either. Forget the dreadful grip, the Glock platform is proven reliable. The SR9 is in direct comparison to this weapon, undeniably Ruger copied the Glock trigger mechanism instead of developing their own unique system. This alone would seem to justify the rep of the Glock, if not then the SR9 platform is flawed from the start right? This thread is the best discussion yet about the SR9 problem, someone actually has first hand knowledge of the situation. Nobody made it a Ruger vs Glock thing but you.

To deny a problem exists is illogical. Even in a small sampling such as this forum there are just too many similar instances to ignore. It's OK to admit there's a problem. Really. I really like Ruger, have 3 others now and look to add more BUT another SR9 is not on the list.

I bet everyone on the forum was hoping the 9C would come out of the box and be right.

And nhlever, please stick around and keep the forum informed as much as you're able.

Now that's damn funny right there, Armed, you just accused this guy of being a drunk the day before (the post below).

And Armed, although I have have a bit of a silly streak in me, I don't bash guns here very often, I do reserve the right to bash the fanboys and do that quite well.
I own a few pistols and most are very nice ones and I shoot them probably more than the average guy on this forum does. I also fix a few guns here and there and help people a lot at local ranges. It just strikes me how the SR9 seems to get beat up on a daily basis here and it's probably the best semi-auto centerfire pistol Ruger ever has made.

Well, I can only assure everyone that several SR-9's, and SR-9c's were shot more rounds before the gun's release than all the rounds put together by all the folks complaining about peening have fired. None of those guns failed, and I can assure you that they weren't treated as nicely as most of you treat yours. Should they peen, probably not, will it affect function, or accuracy, probably not.

Interesting. Good to know. In otherwords, the people who are reporting, with pictures, excessive peening including those who report failure of the weapon to go into battery because of the peening....are liars. Why would people intentionally dis a weapon they bought because they wanted it? Worried Glock boys? :roll:

Edit: You must work for Ruger quality control to be able to make this assurance. Maybe an approved "leak"? Care to share any data?

Have another sip. :wink:

They same loons that bark that the SR9 is a known Ruger issue can't admit that most SR9's are fine, I acknowledge that some have had issues with their pistols but to claim 33 percent coming out of the factory are crap based on the postings here is nuts. Armed, I have helped far more on this site than you will ever know.

 

[revhigh]

I acknowledge that some have had issues with their pistols but to claim 33 percent coming out of the factory are crap based on the postings here is nuts.

Hey Cheese !

This is where I got that number .... wasn't making it up, just using the number that the forum members that were polled admitted to.

http://www.rugerforum.com/phpBB/viewtop ... light=poll

at the time, it was closer to 33%

REV

 

[Ale-8(1)]

Don't think you can make a case for 33% of Ruger's output being bad based on 25 "votes" that do not necessarily involve peening.

Seriously, Rev, get real. We're not claiming perfection here, but you're making a mountain out of a mole hill, and you do it with glee.

:roll:

 

[revhigh]

Because that completely does away with the "mass production" of functionally identical interchangeable parts. If the parts must be separated by "size" and selectively assembled, the economy of scale is lost.

Understood Ale, I realize that, but if you can't resolve the manufacturing problem that causes the variance in tolerances for the parts involved, then the next best thing is to do what I suggested. Does it take a little more time to do that ?? Sure it does .... but how much time and cost does it take to totally process just ONE return for peening or other problem ??

Like most manufacturing people say .... there's never enough time to do it right the first time, but there's ALWAYS time to do it OVER again ...

REV