SR9 (V1.2) vs. SR9c vs. Glock G19 --- range report.

[HS-LD]

Went to the range today and put about 100 rounds of Winchester white box through each.

The SR9 (v1.2) shot tactical 3 inch 10 shot groups at 10 yards.

The Sr9c shot tactical 4 inch 10 shot groups at 10 yards.

The Glock G-19 shot 6 inch groups but skewed to the left by 6 inches too. (The wife shot 4 inch groups dead center, not sure what was up with that...)


For me the SR9 was really dialed in right out of the box. The Sr9c is the same.

My "reference" glock 19 was off. Not sure why. Need to dial it in by itself.


As for size, the SR9 is G19 sized, which is fine by me. The Sr9c is smaller then the G19, but bigger then a G26.


No FTF or issues of any kind. The triggers on both Rugers were fine for me. The G19 seemed heavier in comparison. (Maybe why I was pulling everything to the left...)

 

[ArmedinAZ]

Went to the range today and put about 100 rounds of Winchester white box through each.

The SR9 (v1.2) shot tactical 3 inch 10 shot groups at 10 yards.

The Sr9c shot tactical 4 inch 10 shot groups at 10 yards.

The Glock G-19 shot 6 inch groups but skewed to the left by 6 inches too. (The wife shot 4 inch groups dead center, not sure what was up with that...)

)

Could you explain your use of the term "tactical X inch groups" ? Would a 5 inch group be tactical as well?

Honestly, if your box stock SRs have lighter triggers than a stock Glock something is wrong with the Glock. I've measured numerous GLocks with a digital gauge and they all come in from 5.5-6 lbs. Has anyone measured V1.2 SR9s on a gauge?

 

[jhearne]

Remember Armed, the new v1.2 and SR9c internals are made to ensure a more consistent pull instead of the broad spectrum of pull weight we saw with 1.0-1.1 SR9s.

Also, the grip angle of the SR9 and Glocks are different right? That can also play into the factors. If the 2 SR9 triggers are very similar and ergos are the same; except for some additional weight (SR9), then the grouping should be similar. The difference in the trigger (SR vs G) would show why you might be pulling it to the left a bit.

Also curious about your "Tactical" labeling of the SR results.

Josh

 

[ArmedinAZ]

Remember Armed, the new v1.2 and SR9c internals are made to ensure a more consistent pull instead of the broad spectrum of pull weight we saw with 1.0-1.1 SR9s.

Has there been confirmation from a Ruger inside source about the internals?

I'm not V literate, so the SR9c is V1.0 and this upgraded SR9 is V1.2 even though the bits are the same? (D shaped mag release button, takedown lever shape, fire control parts etc?)

Also, the grip angle of the SR9 and Glocks are different right? That can also play into the factors. If the 2 SR9 triggers are very similar and ergos are the same; except for some additional weight (SR9), then the grouping should be similar. The difference in the trigger (SR vs G) would show why you might be pulling it to the left a bit.

Also curious about your "Tactical" labeling of the SR results.

Point being more that Glocks seem to be consistently very near their advertised pull weight, 5.5 lbs. Is the OP saying that these new SR guns have a lighter pull? Didn't you do some pulls recently?

I have 2 pistols that I can shoot 2" groups with and 2 that I can shoot 1" groups with. Are these "tactical+ grade" , target grade, match grade or what? I'm not much of a shooter so must be the guns

 

[Sonnytoo]

I saw this and immediately figured that the G19 would have shot into 2" @ ten yards. I know there's a ton of variables here, but the G19, as posted earlier, has a pull of about 5.5 # in these guns.
My SR9c is nice, but it can't stand with a Glock 19 and even loses to my G26 subcompact.
Interesting post, though. Thanks.
Sonnytoo

 

[jhearne]

Armed, yes, I have shared emails over the past few weeks with someone who I can't name at the moment. He has been in contact with a pretty reliable source but only gave me permission to say that Ruger DID acknowledge the changes made. The D Shaped Mag release obviously and some finer details internally were changed. Exactly when these happened in the production line, I don't know. We knew these changes happened, just off our own observations here in previous threads. Just when we would call Ruger to see what was up, no one would give a straight answer to us.

For all purposes, think of all SR9 pistols, SR9c included as the same chassis. V1.0 was the original SR9, V1.1 was when we had the Recall and any gun produced up until the SR9c's release. V1.2 is the internals shared between new SR9's and the completely new SR9c. Mechanically the only difference between the V1.2 SR9 and SR9c is the Guide Rod (single spring - SR9 and double spring - SR9c) and the SR9c has a Camblock that has the same physical profile, but has been machined down to work with the smaller frame....other than that, the 1.2 pistols (new SR9s and SR9c) are the same guns, internally.

I was told by my source that they made changes to the internal fire control parts for the new SR9c. My best guess as to why the SR9 has the new parts was to ease production, and make assembly less complicated between two similar, but at the time, different guns. I also think they would've refined the parts to better tolerances, if they are able to hold closer parts, then I would think that would make the internals more consistent....and in turn, create a more uniform experience from gun to gun...just my .02 on what I was given to pass on. He didn't want to tarnish the relationship with his contact at Ruger so he only let me divulge certain info to you guys.

I did do some trigger pull tests from a fixed position with a pretty reliable and repeatable setup. I do have the footage from them and I'm planning on posting them up at sometime, but I need to set aside time to get them all exported and then uploaded. The Ghost Rocket on my 1.1 internals came out at a solid 5.0 lbs on 5 pulls. My polished trigger came out at 6.0 lbs, and my stock bar Ruger sent me was about 6.5 lbs. I don't know how the newer 1.2 internals compare to what I got.

Josh

 

[ArmedinAZ]

Good info Josh, thanks.

Now, about these tactical groups..?

 

[revhigh]

My SR9c is nice, but it can't stand with a Glock 19 and even loses to my G26 subcompact.

C'mon ST !!! They were TACTICAL groups ... how can you doubt something when it's called 'TACTICAL' ?? LOL

REV

 

[ArmedinAZ]

Still waiting for an explanation of the tactical groups.

Just noticed that the wife shot 4" centered groups with the 19. Apparently if the wife shoots a 4" group it isn't tactical. :?

 

[revhigh]

You can almost tell how posts like the OP are going to turn out when it's a new member with a few new Rugers ....

REV

 

[leejack]

Brother Rev,

I never consider my shots to be tactical; mine are more strategic!

It's an old Air Force thing! :wink:

Lee

 

[Mike J]

Heck, Most of my groups are tactical
Maybe one day I'll get good enough to call 'em strategic.

Welcome to the forum HS-LD.

 

[revhigh]

Brother Rev,

I never consider my shots to be tactical; mine are more strategic!

It's an old Air Force thing! :wink:

Lee

Hey Lee !!! You have a PM from me that you never picked up !!

REV

 

[HS-LD]

Went to the range today and put about 100 rounds of Winchester white box through each.

The SR9 (v1.2) shot tactical 3 inch 10 shot groups at 10 yards.

The Sr9c shot tactical 4 inch 10 shot groups at 10 yards.

The Glock G-19 shot 6 inch groups but skewed to the left by 6 inches too. (The wife shot 4 inch groups dead center, not sure what was up with that...)

)

Could you explain your use of the term "tactical X inch groups" ? Would a 5 inch group be tactical as well?

Honestly, if your box stock SRs have lighter triggers than a stock Glock something is wrong with the Glock. I've measured numerous GLocks with a digital gauge and they all come in from 5.5-6 lbs. Has anyone measured V1.2 SR9s on a gauge?

By "tactical" I mean that I didn't spend 2 minutes between each shot lining things up from a benchrest.

10 rounds in about 20 seconds. Like you might shoot in a tactical training course.

Yup, all my Glocks are about that. And my SR9 v1.2 and SR9c have lighter and smoother triggers.

Hey, my G-19's (plural) have been my reference guns since 2005 with the G27 being my everyday gun since 1997. I'm as surprised as ya'all that the Sr9's did so well.

I'm going out this week to do some precision shooting, (that would mean taking time between shots from a benchrest) to see how everything shakes out.

But so far the new SR-9's are really impressing.

 

[HS-LD]

I saw this and immediately figured that the G19 would have shot into 2" @ ten yards. I know there's a ton of variables here, but the G19, as posted earlier, has a pull of about 5.5 # in these guns.
My SR9c is nice, but it can't stand with a Glock 19 and even loses to my G26 subcompact.
Interesting post, though. Thanks.
Sonnytoo

The G-19 probably can from a benchrest. (Or even if you take your time. )

There are a ton of variables, and I'm wondering what would have happened if I shot the G-19 first and then shot the Sr's, instead of the other way around.

I'm not making any conclusions yet, it's still early days.

 

[ArmedinAZ]

Welcome and thanks for the explanation. Makes perfect sense, you're getting a feel for how well they come back on target. A sensible use of the word "tactical", imagine that. :wink:

 

[Sonnytoo]

I'll be interested to see how your precision shooting comes out. You've got some good guns that are pitted against each other. Of course, I guess any particular gun can be super-accurate or a super-dog. A tighter fit, or sloppier fit. The ammo you pick, etc. Anyway, you've got two G19's, please see whether they are similar in accuracy. I have Rugers and Glocks, so yeah, I'm interested.
Will be looking for your posts. Thanks.
Sonnytoo