SR45C
- Thread starter bigtheno
- Start date
Donaldjr1969
Blackhawk
No, but I would not be surprised if they did a few years down the road. After all, they would be foolish not to produce a DAO, striker-fired 45 as others like Glock, Kahr, Springfield Armory, and even Stoeger have done.
kscott
Single-Sixer
I also would not be surprised to see one at some point, but honestly I can see them coming out with a SR40c and possibly a SR45 before that. With that said, if you are wanting a compact 45 in the near future, I'd look elsewhere. Possibly a S&W M&P? It has some similar ergonomic characteristics.
jhearne
Buckeye
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,365
I don't see one in the immediate future, you may be waiting a full 1-2 years before then. Ruger had to make some modifications to the SR9's platform to make the 9c work.
If you're wanting a .45 ACP compact sized, I'd look at the Sig P250, for a Sig, it's actually reasonably priced.
Josh
If you're wanting a .45 ACP compact sized, I'd look at the Sig P250, for a Sig, it's actually reasonably priced.
Josh
Lateck
Single-Sixer
kscott said:
+1, this is what I would believe ....
Lateck,
Lets hope they come out with a SR45 or a SR45c. I would have to pick up one.
Tam 212
Single-Sixer
+1.
BulkAmmo
Bearcat
- Joined
- Sep 2, 2010
- Messages
- 77
I'm sure there are already working on the prototypes. I wouldn't be surprised if they are further along than any of us would guess. It's probably a matter of waiting for the right time to release it.
Most companies don't want to compete with their own offerings. Once the SR40 sales start to slip or stabilize. The SR45 will be right behind it. There is just too big of a market for concealable firearms.
_________________
Bulk .44 Magnum Ammo
Most companies don't want to compete with their own offerings. Once the SR40 sales start to slip or stabilize. The SR45 will be right behind it. There is just too big of a market for concealable firearms.
_________________
Bulk .44 Magnum Ammo
NixieTube
Blackhawk
Ruger's actually going about their business of introducing new pistols pretty carefully and methodically. The LCP, the LCR, the SR9, the SR9c, and now the SR40 are all new models introduced in the past few years, but compare that to the number of Glocks in their product catalog.
It looks to me like they're taking a lot of time identifying markets and calibers and gun types they can bring to market profitably without overextending themselves or alienating their past customers: they're picking their targets carefully.
So actually, I wouldn't count on an SR45 for at least the next year, I agree with Josh Hearne. The SR40 is their big deal right now, and they want it to get out the door and into the hands of lots of satisfied customers.
Above everything else, Ruger wants to maintain its impeccable zero-debt financial picture and profitability, so they're not going to start cranking out guns that don't make money just to have another caliber in their model line. When you're competing against Glock, that's the kind of measured strategy I'd imagine it takes to compete.
It looks to me like they're taking a lot of time identifying markets and calibers and gun types they can bring to market profitably without overextending themselves or alienating their past customers: they're picking their targets carefully.
So actually, I wouldn't count on an SR45 for at least the next year, I agree with Josh Hearne. The SR40 is their big deal right now, and they want it to get out the door and into the hands of lots of satisfied customers.
Above everything else, Ruger wants to maintain its impeccable zero-debt financial picture and profitability, so they're not going to start cranking out guns that don't make money just to have another caliber in their model line. When you're competing against Glock, that's the kind of measured strategy I'd imagine it takes to compete.
Cheesewhiz
Hunter
NixieTube said:
You do realize that it took Glock about thirty years to come up with their extensive catalog of striker fired pistols and Ruger has been doing it for what, three years?
NixieTube
Blackhawk
Cheesewhiz said:
Sure, that's what I'm saying in a little bit of a different way. Glock has a huge catalog of pistols in lots of different sizes and calibers that they've accumulated over that long a span a time. They're really the Big Cheese in Polymer-Framed Handguns and they've got the market covered. I think Ruger is taking it one step at a time, creating new products where they really think they have a chance to either create or claw away from Glock some of that market share, amd without cannibalizing their own existing products.
At least to my eyes, it looks like Ruger going one step at a time, one carefully-considered new gun at a time.
Cheesewhiz
Hunter
I'm not trying to start anything here at all but I disagree. Ruger, in the last three years alone has introduced three new striker pistols from scratch, an ultra compact .380, a CCW revolver and a AR-15, along with model upgrades and new calibers for existing platforms. They seem a bit more aggressive than you would think in my book.
NixieTube
Blackhawk
In true point-counterpoint fashion between friendly arguers, I'll retort:
The LCP and LCR are really targeted at markets Glock isn't paying much attention to: really small and deep personal, civilian CCW weapons. I look at them differently because Glock doesn't really have anything in their product line like them. Glock doesn't do revolvers and even though they could easily engineer an ultracompact CCW gun, they haven't done it yet, for reasons only they know. I give Ruger a lot of credit for picking out that niche and really blowing it wide open with the LCR and LCP, even though I still can't buy an LCP where I live (sadly). And let's give credit where credit is due: Kel-Tec really got the ultracompact "mouse gun" ball rolling, and then Ruger jumped in with both feet and a backup revolver
.
On the rifle side, the SR-556 took Ruger quite a while to bring to a crowded market and when it finally got there, it was a piston-operated gun that can't be easily converted to .22LR for plinking, and late to the party - but maybe the late arrival was the best-dressed and among the best shooting of the bunch. I can't look at it and say Ruger was rushing to bring that gun to market - after all, it was a fairly major cultural shift for them. I think they took their sweet time and got it right.
That leaves the SR9, SR9c and SR40. The SR9 had great initial reviews and fanfare and then suffered a recall and some other teething pains after its rollout. I bought one anyway and I'm glad I did. I think Ruger was hoping the SR9 was going to make more of a splash in the Law Enforcement market versus the Springfields, S&W M&Ps, Glocks, and Sigs, but that first recall and subsequent questions about barrel peening threw some cold water on that ambition.
Just reading the posts here at Rugerforum you can tell that the SR9's early troubles cast a bit of a shadow over the SR9c in a lot of people's minds. I think it's equally possible that those difficulties led Ruger to keep some of their older models around longer than they would have otherwise.
So we're the Siskel and Ebert of Ruger's marketing strategy, I guess.
The LCP and LCR are really targeted at markets Glock isn't paying much attention to: really small and deep personal, civilian CCW weapons. I look at them differently because Glock doesn't really have anything in their product line like them. Glock doesn't do revolvers and even though they could easily engineer an ultracompact CCW gun, they haven't done it yet, for reasons only they know. I give Ruger a lot of credit for picking out that niche and really blowing it wide open with the LCR and LCP, even though I still can't buy an LCP where I live (sadly). And let's give credit where credit is due: Kel-Tec really got the ultracompact "mouse gun" ball rolling, and then Ruger jumped in with both feet and a backup revolver
.On the rifle side, the SR-556 took Ruger quite a while to bring to a crowded market and when it finally got there, it was a piston-operated gun that can't be easily converted to .22LR for plinking, and late to the party - but maybe the late arrival was the best-dressed and among the best shooting of the bunch. I can't look at it and say Ruger was rushing to bring that gun to market - after all, it was a fairly major cultural shift for them. I think they took their sweet time and got it right.
That leaves the SR9, SR9c and SR40. The SR9 had great initial reviews and fanfare and then suffered a recall and some other teething pains after its rollout. I bought one anyway
and I'm glad I did. I think Ruger was hoping the SR9 was going to make more of a splash in the Law Enforcement market versus the Springfields, S&W M&Ps, Glocks, and Sigs, but that first recall and subsequent questions about barrel peening threw some cold water on that ambition. Just reading the posts here at Rugerforum you can tell that the SR9's early troubles cast a bit of a shadow over the SR9c in a lot of people's minds. I think it's equally possible that those difficulties led Ruger to keep some of their older models around longer than they would have otherwise.
So we're the Siskel and Ebert of Ruger's marketing strategy, I guess.
Cheesewhiz
Hunter
Nice discussion, Nixie.
I believe with the beefing up of the slide on the SR40, that a .45 is probably coming along fairly soon for that platform. I am pretty sure that a 1911 is also in the works, don't know what happens with the P345 if that is the case, could Ruger have a new brand to field a 1911?
I believe with the beefing up of the slide on the SR40, that a .45 is probably coming along fairly soon for that platform. I am pretty sure that a 1911 is also in the works, don't know what happens with the P345 if that is the case, could Ruger have a new brand to field a 1911?
ledyard
Bearcat
I would love a SR45c. I carry a Kahr TP45 and have been thinking of getting the new SR9c. But I would much rather have one in .45.
All of us need to be sure and fill out a "Tell the CEO" form on the Ruger website. Express your desire for an SR45, I did. One of the Ruger reps was on Tom Gresham's radio show a few months back and said they actually read every one of them, taking into consideration all suggestions. He did also admit that they don't reply to all of them. Just because of the amount they get.
Couldn't hurt!
Here's a link:
http://ruger.com/resources/tellTheCEO.html
Couldn't hurt!
Here's a link:
http://ruger.com/resources/tellTheCEO.html
ledyard said:
I have a Kahr P45, love that gun. I would buy an SR45, SR45c, and SR40c. As it is the SR40 is one of the next pistols I will buy. I'm torn between that or the Smith SD40. Either way I'll own both, just a question as to which one I get first.
ledyard
Bearcat
jlottmc said:
With the lack of a SR45c or even maybe a SR40c available I'm looking at a S&W M+P 45c. But its no rush. A 4" GP100 is next on the list.
