P97 Who has one?

Help Support Ruger Forum:

welder

Buckeye
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
1,813
Location
western ky usa
A few months ago I picked up a P97DC from Al James here on the forum. I had it out for the second time last week and put another 130 or so rounds through it with nary a hitch. Handloads were 200g XTP's (thanks Dixieboy), Critical Defense 230, bulk American Eagle 230g fmj, and lastly some Golden Sabres. I have a fairly large stash of P guns but managed to miss this one somehow, so I'm just wondering how many others here have a 97 and your thought on them?
 

hittman

Moderator
Staff member
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2008
Messages
10,844
Location
Illinois
Well, I had one for a number of years. A stainless slide DC. Great shooting basic 45ACP; not a thing wrong with it. Only sold it 'cause I moved on to an SR1911 and a Sig P220.
 

roylt

Hunter
Joined
Sep 21, 2010
Messages
3,051
I sold the extra one because I didn't like how it felt when shooting. Still have one in my "P-series set".

Also traded Ruger one on a SR1911 which I like to shoot a lot more.
 

Al James

Buckeye
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
1,823
Location
Orygun
Well I had one....the pistol that Welder has is a ringer. I shot several very tight groups with that pistol. I never bothered posting it here because of the smack talking P gun haters on this here forum. I've owned quite a few P97's through the years and they have all been excellent pistols. I've read of early guns having a slide stop that likes to walk out under recoil, other than that I think the P97's were GTG.

The only reason I moved away from them is Ruger's lack of parts support. After writing Ruger several times regarding P parts [without response], I decided to lean out the lower production P guns in my stable. Sad indeed but it was Ruger's decision...not mine :cry:
 

welder

Buckeye
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
1,813
Location
western ky usa
It's a good shooter Al, I like it and will keep it. I haven't shot measured rested shots with it yet but maybe when there's more time I'll get to it. I've only been able to get to the range three times this year, twice in the last month. Most of my time there has been trying to maintain the fundamentals.

From my understanding, yes the slide stop thing was worked out early on in the series. I was looking at production numbers for the 97's and unless I made a mistake, the one I have was produced in the last 100?? Found that info on another forum.

Might add a second one along the way.
 

SteveSatch

Single-Sixer
Joined
Mar 23, 2000
Messages
224
I had two but sold/traded them. 9mm ammo is cheaper so I always took the P95s out.
 

tercel89

Single-Sixer
Joined
Jul 22, 2010
Messages
174
My P97 always seems to out shoot other fancier DA/SA 45's like the Sig 220's and H&K's. It is funny when those owners see that I am shooting a pistol that cost a fraction of the price of theirs.
 

welder

Buckeye
Joined
Sep 2, 2007
Messages
1,813
Location
western ky usa
I have three P94's, one NIB with shipper, one of my favorite "P" guns. I probably favor the P90 first followed by the P95/P94 but am having a lot of fun with this P97. A very easy shooter and in my favorite caliber.
 

bczrx

Single-Sixer
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
121
Location
South San Joaquin Valley, CA
My user name doesn't reflect it, but I actually joined this forum back around 2001 or 2002 when I bought my P97. It was my second Ruger [first was GP100]. I still have it. [between 2005 and 2010 I was out of the firearm world due to a move, new job and new family that I had to 'break in', before taking the guns out of storage.]

Back around 2010 I jumped back into the firearm scene. With a new job I began acquiring some new handguns. I bought a blackened stainless target Springfield 1911, a H&K USP 45c, and a Sig P220 Combat.

I had heard so many wondrous things about their quality, I had to have the 'better' guns.

I put about 500-800 rounds through each, I believe, before I decided to do a shooting test. I had already sighted in each gun.

One day I decided to do a 7 yard freestanding magazine load into a target that had 5 bullseye circles on it. I did this with 5 different .45acp handguns I had: DGFM 1911 [better known as a Sistema Modelo 1927] that I have worked over, Springfield mentioned above, USP .45c, P220Combat and Ruger P97.

I shot each bullseye in a steady measured fire-nothing rapid. Probably about 1-2 minutes for the magazine, as I worked on sight alignment and trigger control.

I took 10 minute breaks between each gun, so that fatigue would be a minimal issue.

I shot the Ruger P97DC [stainless slide] 4th of the 5, and this was the first magazine I had fired from it in 5 years- unlike the over 1500 rounds through all the others in the previous 4 months.

The tightest group size was the Sistema [It IS customized by me], with a group of about 2", counting the 'flier'.

The second tightest group was the Ruger P97, with a group size of around 2.5".

The third tightest was the Springfield 1911, which gave me a group size of around 3.75".

The fourth was the USP .45C, with a group size of around 4.5-4.75".

the fifth was the Sig P220 with a group size of around 7".

All the group sizes were consistent with previous experiences with them.

Again, the Ruger wasn't the first or the last gun fired, and I had an over 5 year gap between the last time I fired it and this time.

Yet, it was almost tied for the best, and it was easily half the price of everything except the DGFM, which I paid $300 OTD for in 2001 or 2002 [but which is now ALL EGW parts, except barrel and trigger].

SO, I sold the Springfield, the USP .45C and the Sig P220Combat.

I'll admit the recoil 'feel' is a bit odd, but it just simply works.

I will also admit I prefer a 'glass rod breaking' trigger break to the Ruger rolling trigger break, but it just works.

I have to note that, with factory springs in it, the DA pull is around 8lbs and the SA pull is around 3-3.25lbs. Safe enough for carry, but nice for range work when the slide is dropped to shoot right away.

I have the utmost confidence in it, but I don't shoot it as much as some others. It is boringly reliable, and I have a few more options.

Also, I like trying my hand at Gunsmithing, and the Ruger just simply works- it takes away all the challenge of having to 'fix' things!

Although, it would be nice to be able to put a weapon light on it. Without buying a P345.

Enjoy. It is surprisingly reliable and feels good in my hand, despite the odd recoil impulse.
 

Al James

Buckeye
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
1,823
Location
Orygun
DA_TriggR4Ruger said:
tercel89 said:
My P97 always seems to out shoot other fancier DA/SA 45's like the Sig 220's and H&K's. It is funny when those owners see that I am shooting a pistol that cost a fraction of the price of theirs.

LMAO

:roll: Are you saying a Ruger 45 cant shoot along side a Sig 220?
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
2,791
Location
Granbury, TX. USA
Al James said:
DA_TriggR4Ruger said:
tercel89 said:
My P97 always seems to out shoot other fancier DA/SA 45's like the Sig 220's and H&K's. It is funny when those owners see that I am shooting a pistol that cost a fraction of the price of theirs.

LMAO

:roll: Are you saying a Ruger 45 cant shoot along side a Sig 220?

I've owned both, previously the KP97DC and still own a P220 & P227, the Ruger couldn't come close to the accuracy or reliability of my Sigs.

To be fair, the Ruger P97 was one of my first "REAL" guns. It was more reliable than my Springfield 1911 stainless GI at the time, and due to better sights than the GI, more accurate as well.

My first handgun was a a Ruger P89TH. The accuracy was terrible. I thought it was me, almost gave up, but the P97 proved to be a much more accurate gun than the P89.

The P97 was my fav gun for years to come. Even when the P345 was introduced, the P97 was there by my side. The P345 had terrible issues (a buddy of mine was an early adopter) but my P97 exhibited none of the issues his P345 had.

I've owned several 1911s over the years, but they always required some kind of tweaking to work right with any given magazine or ammo type.

Another buddy of mine said try a Sig. Well a few months later I did just that. Still have the Sigs.

If I can enjoy the accuracy and quality of fine Ruger and S&W revolvers, then why should my semi-auto experience suffer?

Not a Ruger Hater, not at all, you can read all my posts praising Ruger... HOWEVER a Ruger semi-auto is what it is. I don't want make it sound like it's something it's not. Then others will have unrealistic expectations of it. At this point you're accountable to the less experienced...
 

Al James

Buckeye
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
1,823
Location
Orygun
Couldn't come close? Really DA? Do you think it was you or the gun? Tell me...Is the P220 a 2" at 25 yards pistol? I know from personal experience and several ransom rest tests through the years that the P97 is capable of sub 3" groups and many times closer to 2". Same as the P345. Both seem to be a little less accurate than the P90 but all P series 45 autos I have bumped into are still quite accurate. So are they close? Lets say they are 4" guns.....are they still close? 2" vs 4" at 25 yards...think about that in relation to Tercel89's story that you laughed at. Do you think he could outshoot a 220 or HK given that minuscule difference in mechanical accuracy? Or are you with Revhigh that all P shooters are only capable of 8-10" groups at 10 yards? I think even Rev acknowledges the accuracy of the P90 pistols along with several other people in the industry that know what they are talking about. Rather than beat the dead pony again....google P90 vs P220 and see if I'm the only one with these crazy theories intended to mislead the beginners. :lol:

All of this the constant Sig love aside I have a :?: ...DAtrigger4Ruger are you a Sig Dealer?
 

bczrx

Single-Sixer
Joined
Sep 28, 2010
Messages
121
Location
South San Joaquin Valley, CA
DAtrigger4Ruger, I have a question.

You identified that your P97 couldn't compare to the accuracy and reliability of your Sigs.

Yet, you give us NOTHING to use to justify it- other than your statement that the Sigs were better.

How?

I gave measured group sizes to demonstrate that MY P97 grouped better in MY hand than a P220Combat did, by a group size about 1/2 the size of the Sig. I didn't intend to claim Sigs aren't capable of better group sizes. The intention of my comments was to indicate that not all shooters have the same results with different brands/designs, and that MY experience made me appreciate the Ruger more.

I am willing to concede that the Sig is probably more accurate. However, I would like to hear you identify what makes the Ruger P97 less reliable.
  • How often did it fail to feed a round?
    What type of round was it and did you use the same types in the Sig?
    If so, how did the Sig do?
    How often did it fail to eject a round?
    What type was it and did you use the same types in the Sig?
    If so, how did the Sig do?
Can you give us any shot group size measurements to compare?

All I am reading is 'I like it better'- with no data.

I am not disagreeing with you. That is definitely your feelings about the guns in your hands. And many will agree with you.

What I am looking for is any type of objective details to support it.

In an earlier post, I mentioned my experiences and listed group sizes. I forgot to mention, but could have mentioned that I didn't experience a single FTFeed, FTFire, FTEject or any other reliability issue with over 5000 rounds through my P97 so far. I also didn't experience any of these with my Sigs.

Of course, your experiences, like mine, and like most gun reviews, are a sample of one- and are thus statistically interesting, but insignificant. However, no data to report doesn't support much.

The only data I can remember is from a 2001 Shooting Times report, in which these were two of the guns tested. There are flaws with the methodology, but the Sig P220 had a FTFeed and FTE in the first 5000 rounds of 230 FMJ, while the P97 didn't have any failures, with 4000 rounds of 230FMJ and 1000 of a variety of HPs.

The group sizes were at 25 yards and were only about .25" better for the Sig, and that could be accounted for by the fact that a Ransom Rest was used for the Sig and sandbags for the Ruger.

This is 'measured' data.
It is flawed.
It is a sample of one gun for each model/brand.
Yet, it is actual measured data.

This would support the notion that the accuracy difference is probably statistically insignificant for someone who is not a bullseye competitive shooter. If the sandbag vs Ransom Rest variable were taken out, it is conceivable that the group sizes might have been even closer in size.

So, what is it that makes YOUR experience that makes you feel that the Sig is so much better that you Laugh your A** Off at those who have such success with the P97? Because, without any data in support, your post has a weird vibe to it.

I am not arguing for Ruger Loyalty above all else. I am only asking for an explanation of the experiences that make you believe the Ruger P97 is LESS reliable than your Sigs and that it is LESS accurate.

Lastly, do you have the folded-steel slide Sig P220, or the newer solid steel slide? That makes a difference also in reliability, as the older folded steel slides require replacing pins that hold the firing pin block into the slide about every 5000 rounds. The solid slide doesn't have this replacement part issue, and neither does the Ruger.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
2,791
Location
Granbury, TX. USA
We can discuss group sizes all day. I've posted pics and vids on several occasions of my guns and groupings. They are around here somewhere. Everything is numerically quantifiable. So you asked for it. I challenge you to Rev High's 1 inch challenge.

Oh, if the forums search function worked better than a Ruger P-series you could find what I'm talking about. I've got entire threads. You'll just need to find them... Bring it.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
2,791
Location
Granbury, TX. USA
bczrx said:
DAtrigger4Ruger, I have a question.

You identified that your P97 couldn't compare to the accuracy and reliability of your Sigs.

Yet, you give us NOTHING to use to justify it- other than your statement that the Sigs were better.

How?

You'll just have to find the posts. This is getting redundant.

I gave measured group sizes to demonstrate that MY P97 grouped better in MY hand than a P220Combat did, by a group size about 1/2 the size of the Sig. I didn't intend to claim Sigs aren't capable of better group sizes. The intention of my comments was to indicate that not all shooters have the same results with different brands/designs, and that MY experience made me appreciate the Ruger more.

Ok. That's cool

I am willing to concede that the Sig is probably more accurate. However, I would like to hear you identify what makes the Ruger P97 less reliable.
  • How often did it fail to feed a round?
    What type of round was it and did you use the same types in the Sig?
    If so, how did the Sig do?
    How often did it fail to eject a round?
    What type was it and did you use the same types in the Sig?
    If so, how did the Sig do?
Can you give us any shot group size measurements to compare?

All I am reading is 'I like it better'- with no data.

I am not disagreeing with you. That is definitely your feelings about the guns in your hands. And many will agree with you.

What I am looking for is any type of objective details to support it.

In an earlier post, I mentioned my experiences and listed group sizes. I forgot to mention, but could have mentioned that I didn't experience a single FTFeed, FTFire, FTEject or any other reliability issue with over 5000 rounds through my P97 so far. I also didn't experience any of these with my Sigs.

Of course, your experiences, like mine, and like most gun reviews, are a sample of one- and are thus statistically interesting, but insignificant. However, no data to report doesn't support much.

The only data I can remember is from a 2001 Shooting Times report, in which these were two of the guns tested. There are flaws with the methodology, but the Sig P220 had a FTFeed and FTE in the first 5000 rounds of 230 FMJ, while the P97 didn't have any failures, with 4000 rounds of 230FMJ and 1000 of a variety of HPs.

The group sizes were at 25 yards and were only about .25" better for the Sig, and that could be accounted for by the fact that a Ransom Rest was used for the Sig and sandbags for the Ruger.

This is 'measured' data.
It is flawed.
It is a sample of one gun for each model/brand.
Yet, it is actual measured data.

This would support the notion that the accuracy difference is probably statistically insignificant for someone who is not a bullseye competitive shooter. If the sandbag vs Ransom Rest variable were taken out, it is conceivable that the group sizes might have been even closer in size.

So, what is it that makes YOUR experience that makes you feel that the Sig is so much better that you Laugh your A** Off at those who have such success with the P97? Because, without any data in support, your post has a weird vibe to it.

I am not arguing for Ruger Loyalty above all else. I am only asking for an explanation of the experiences that make you believe the Ruger P97 is LESS reliable than your Sigs and that it is LESS accurate.

Lastly, do you have the folded-steel slide Sig P220, or the newer solid steel slide? That makes a difference also in reliability, as the older folded steel slides require replacing pins that hold the firing pin block into the slide about every 5000 rounds. The solid slide doesn't have this replacement part issue, and neither does the Ruger.

It's all posted.
 

revhigh

Hawkeye
Joined
Aug 31, 2005
Messages
5,590
Location
PA
Only a Ruger fanboi would consider a 4 inch group to 2 inch group at 25 yards ... Miniscule ...

But that statement definitely explains the ridiculous arguments that some members make.

I told you DA... There's no explaining the differences to those who make statements like the one above. :D

REV
 

Al James

Buckeye
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
1,823
Location
Orygun
revhigh said:
Only a Ruger fanboi would consider a 4 inch group to 2 inch group at 25 yards ... Miniscule ...

But that statement definitely explains the ridiculous arguments that some members make.

I told you DA... There's no explaining the differences to those who make statements like the one above. :D

REV

Either my writing skills are poor or your reading comprehension level is low. So just for you....I'll try again REV.

If one pistol is capable of only 3-4" at 25 yards and the other is capable of 2" at the same distance do you find it possible that the 4" gun could "outshoot" the other? There are enough variables involved that I do not find a "LMAO" response to Tercel89 warranted or based in reality. There is nothing "Fanboi" about it.

I do not think there are any of us that think Ruger P series are the finest weapons ever made. We can all appreciate fine weaponry that costs 100-500% more. I own many "better" guns. The P series were designed to be produced using cast parts in order to keep the cost low while still offering a very serviceable weapon for the DOD trials. I feel well practiced and accurate enough with a P90 that I could spank many shooters with "better" guns. My P90's shoot right alone side every 1911, Sig 220, Glock 21 or other 45 I own or have owned. That is not some Ruger fanboi brag....just a fact. The guns flat out shoot well. It is a simple fact that only P haters [on a Ruger forum no less] discount the accuracy potential of the entire series and especially the P90.

As I have said before regarding the P series..... not the best sights or trigger but they are reliable and accurate enough for most peoples needs. Not a "fanboi" comment just facts. That's why against all internet warrior odds they made them for 20 years and sold millions of them. And real life people still enjoy them and rely on them daily. Not fanbois, just people who appreciate a well made product that is made in the USA and sold at a reasonable price.

Just my .02 directed at our resident gun snobs.....again. I come here to talk and read about Rugers. Not Glock, Sigs, or CZ's. I'm open to subforums for the fanbois though :wink:
 

Latest posts

Top