p95 or sr9?

[christiancowboy]

I have never had a pistol before and I was wondering which is better, p95 or sr9? Thank you for your help and GOD Bless you all.

 

[22/45 Fan]

I've owned both and like both.

The SR9 is slimmer and a bit more ergonomic (to me at least). The adjustable rear sight and the 1911-like manual safety are pluses in my opinion. Accessories like after market sights and holsters are getting to be relatively common. The trigger pull is "Glock Like" which is neither a compliment or a condemnation. Mine has been 100% reliable so far.

The P95 will be less expensive, a bit bulkier but a well proven, time tested and reliable design. The double action/single action trigger takes some getting used to but is typical of the breed. Accessories such as sights and holsters are widely available.

Summary: For range or home defense use, either will be highly satisfactory. For concealed carry, the SR9 is a bit slimmer and easier to pack.

 

[jim85255]

I have a P95. It eats everything, is easy to clean and is solidly built. If it is you first pistol it would be a good place to start. It also is cheaper than the SR9 Good luck

JRB

 

[blume357]

I'm kind of of the rule a first pistol should actually be a revolver. (I grew up with the term 'pistol' meaning any handgun)

But if you've narrowed your choice down to the two...I would vote on the P95. But, understand I've never shot or even held a SR9. If you go with a P95, I would strongly suggest a stainless decock only. No safety at all. I see no reason for a safety on these double/single action hand guns.

 

[BuckJM53]

ChristianCowboy ... Welcome to the forum. In answer to your question I am including a comparison that I posted a while back when the same question was asked:

... The real question is which one is the best for you (personally, I don't think you will be disappointed with either choice). Many people here can/will build a strong case for each based on their preference. Instead, for your benefit, let's try to look at the issue as objectively as possible on the key points (these are the key points IMHO):
1) Price + P95 ($100 less)
2) Material = (slight differences in the type of polymer used in the receiver)
3) Ergonomics + SR9 (based on a more modern design, tends to feel a little better in the hand IMHO)
4) Aesthetics + SR9 (designed to be a little prettier IMHO)
5) Ammo capacity + SR9 (+2)
6) Hammer vs. Striker = Both proven systems (preference only)
7) Reliability / Long term Durability + P95 (only because the SR9 is relatively new and initially had a recall)
8.) Ease of concealment + SR9 (thinner, but slightly longer)
9) Carry weight = (26.5 oz vs. 27 oz)
10) Sight adjustment + SR9
11) Ease of maintenance =
12) Accuracy = (I personally have a lot more experience with the P95, but having had the opportunity to shoot a friends SR9 on several occasions, I found my groupings very similar at up to about 35’).
13) Trigger travel & feel = (preference only)
14) Perceived recoil = (IMHO)

With all that said, I'm a P95 guy (got to love the hammer :lol. Best of luck with your decision.

 

[dacaur]

When we were looking for a home defence gun, we looked at both the SR9 and the P95. Both my wife And I liked how the P95 felt in our hands, The SR9 felt too skinny. Because It was for home defence and would be getting a laser, I wasn't worried about the non-adjustable sight. Another thing that factored in, is that personally, I really like having an exposed hammer because Its faster to see if the gun is cocked. If It something you are going to be shooting a lot at he range, Don't even factor in the price difference, since you will need to add an adjustable sight to the p95. Mine shoots high and right using the stock sights, and not being adjustable........

 

[railroader]

When we were looking for a home defence gun, we looked at both the SR9 and the P95. Both my wife And I liked how the P95 felt in our hands, The SR9 felt too skinny. Because It was for home defence and would be getting a laser, I wasn't worried about the non-adjustable sight. Another thing that factored in, is that personally, I really like having an exposed hammer because Its faster to see if the gun is cocked. If It something you are going to be shooting a lot at he range, Don't even factor in the price difference, since you will need to add an adjustable sight to the p95. Mine shoots high and right using the stock sights, and not being adjustable........

Actually ruger makes different height rear sights and you can drift the rear sight to adjust the windage. Contact ruger and see if they can help you out.

 

[Jumping Frog]

I have never had a pistol before and I was wondering which is better, p95 or sr9?

No-one can truly answer that question for you.

If you haven't owned or shot pistols, I strongly recommend you go to a local range that does pistol rentals. Spend the time and money to shoot as many different pistols as you can afford from different brands. Some major brands to consider including (in addition to Ruger) would be Glock, Smith & Wesson, Springfield Armory, Sig Sauer, CZ, and Taurus (non-exhaustive list). If you have friends that with let you try shooting their pistols, that is also great. If will be helpful to you to sample shooting as wide a variety as you you are able because you will find that you get definite preferences for one model over another.

One reason we have so many competing brands out there is every person's hand is slightly different and we all have difference preferences. A gun can feel and shoot great for me, but seem awkward to you. Just because your buddy, or a magazine reviewer, likes a gun does not mean that you will.

One example are Glocks. There are many Glocks fanatics out there who absolutely love their gun and shoot them well. However, I don't shoot a Glock as well as some other guns, such as my Smith & Wesson M&P. That doesn't mean that Glocks are a bad gun, it just means that they weren't a good match for me.

Good luck.

 

[Ruger9mmFan]

I have a SR9 i like it very much . I almost bought a P89 but i didnt like it i picked the SR9 cuz its easier to conceal.

 

[rugerfreak]

Currently have a stainless P95 and just put a blued one on lay-a-way today.

Just got a Galco holster for it---same one as on the Ruger site---but from Midway without the Ruger stamp on it----was quite a but cheaper that way. While breaking in the holster around the house--I fell asleep on the couch with the gun on me---gun between me and the couch---didn't even notice the gun-----I've never had a full sized gun/carry combo that was that comfortable----usually I get poked or hung up on something.

That's part of why I'm getting the second one----and probably another Galco too.

P95--can't beat it---at any price----I've owned Sigs and a HK and they don't do better than the P95 for 2 or 3 times the price-----plus you are employing Americans when you buy Ruger.

Had a SR9---was ok BUT it had the peening issue and Ruger fixed it quickly----I lost all confidence in it and ditched it----The SR9 line needs to mature a bit-----I can see it being a good gun once the bugs are worked out----I might try another one in 2 or 3 years.

 

[revhigh]

P95 ..... no skeletons in it's closet ....

REV

 

[wildturk]

I think this is going to end up one sided, for the 95... but
I have both versions of the P95 and an early, problem free SR9. You won't be disapointed either way. The SR is easier to conceal, higher capacity if your in a "free state" and has the rail. The P95 has been a very good pistol that has been one of Rugers most popular P-Series pistols, is utterly reliable and takes the same mags as other Ruger 9MM P-Series. Consider price, which is the better deal where your looking...

 

[SteveSatch]

The Mec-gar mags for the P95 make it hold as many rounds as the SR9.

 

[mafuta54]

I have 2-10 round, 2-15 round, 2-17 round, and 2-33 round magazines for my P95DC!

 

[buckshotshorty]

I never fondled either of these guns, but the bulkiness/thickness of the P-95 over the SR9 must be a perceived thing.

Actual width P-95: 1.20"
Width SR9: 1.27"

That would make the P-95 smaller.

.

 

[dacaur]

While the overall width may be less on the p95, keep in mind that measurement is taken at the widest point, which would be the slide, or rather, the controls on the slide. The SR9 grips are in fact narrower, and the overall height is less. Hold both and the SR9 definitely feels a lot smaller in your hand. Overall the p95 is more "bulky". I prefer that over the SR9 though... Feels nicer in my hands.... SR9 feels like a girl gun :lol:

 

[revhigh]

I never fondled either of these guns, but the bulkiness/thickness of the P-95 over the SR9 must be a perceived thing.

Actual width P-95: 1.20"
Width SR9: 1.27"

That would make the P-95 smaller.

.

The operative words in your post are these ... I never fondled either of these guns ...

REV

 

[tightgrouper]

I'm new to Ruger pistols. I bought my first P95 a couple months ago. I had the same quandary on my hands. 'P95/SR9'...I really like the look and feel of the SR9, and I will get one on into the 2010 run of them. It was just still alittle early for me, so I chose the P95 after hearing what an excellent gun it is. And the P95 is indeed the best pistol I cold imagine for even close to it's price point. hands down. P95 is a proven workhorse. It eats anything you feed it. You don't have any "break-in" bs. The manual states that it's capable of continuous +P/+P+...something like, "there is no cartridge produced that the P95 is uncapable to fire"(loosely quoted).
It's an excelent pistol. Not for the money. The P95 is an excellent pistol for any money. The price is just a huge bonus for a great pistol.

I will never again purchase a firearm that requires a "break-in period" before it functions properly.
And I will never again own an ammo-picky pistol.
My P95 has changed my view on pistols.
I am starting a collection of Ruger pistols now. There are some guns you never get rid of. A Ruger P95 is one.

 

[NC-P95]

I'm new to Ruger pistols. I bought my first P95 a couple months ago. I had the same quandary on my hands. 'P95/SR9'...I really like the look and feel of the SR9, and I will get one on into the 2010 run of them. It was just still alittle early for me, so I chose the P95 after hearing what an excellent gun it is. And the P95 is indeed the best pistol I cold imagine for even close to it's price point. hands down. P95 is a proven workhorse. It eats anything you feed it. You don't have any "break-in" bs. The manual states that it's capable of continuous +P/+P+...something like, "there is no cartridge produced that the P95 is uncapable to fire"(loosely quoted).
It's an excelent pistol. Not for the money. The P95 is an excellent pistol for any money. The price is just a huge bonus for a great pistol.

I will never again purchase a firearm that requires a "break-in period" before it functions properly.
And I will never again own an ammo-picky pistol.
My P95 has changed my view on pistols.
I am starting a collection of Ruger pistols now. There are some guns you never get rid of. A Ruger P95 is one.

Just put round number 200 through my P95 today! Still not a glitch... The only pistol that I've ever owned that I liked as much as my P95 was my P89DC that I bought new in 1993....wished I still had it...