I like Ruger's products myself and have an SR 1911. I've been looking into the SR9C recently. I liked how it felt and the trigger seemed really nice. What I did not like is the safety itself. The lever seems small and cumbersome to deactivate. I like the ease of the lever on the LC9 much better as it is more like a mini paddle safety on a 1911 for lack of better term. My thumb seemed to have hard time manipulating the safety on the SR9C. Does it break in at all, or better yet can I have it replaced with a different laver?
SR9C Safety
- Thread starter F16Deuce
- Start date
I've never seen any after market safety levers for the Sr's. I have to say though. Isn't this the first thing you'd check before buying a gun? The ease which you can manipulate the controls?
Also any "break in" or loosening of a safety lever would pretty universally be considered a bad quality not a good one.
Also any "break in" or loosening of a safety lever would pretty universally be considered a bad quality not a good one.
I am surprised. The safety on my SR9c is one of the things I really like about this pistol. It is so easy to tell whether it is on or off. Super easy to disengage by just sliding your thumb down the side when picking the gun up as it hits my thumb just right. Just seems a natural movement and so I keep the safety engaged all the time. I couldn't be happier with the SR.
PiratePast40
Single-Sixer
I have to agree with Petie here. The safety is very easy to manipulate, especially with a bit of practice.
22/45 Fan
Hunter
Another "no problem" SR9C owner. The safety isn't huge but wipes off easily.
Keep in mind that modern striker fired pistols that have manual safeties do so as a legal requirement (some states mandate one) and as a belt-and-suspenders approach. With their trigger safety, firing bin blocks, etc. a manual safety is really redundant. Note that Glocks, most S&W M&P's and many others don't even have one. So, unlike a cocked-and-locked 1911, the manual safety on an SR9 is truly optional.
Keep in mind that modern striker fired pistols that have manual safeties do so as a legal requirement (some states mandate one) and as a belt-and-suspenders approach. With their trigger safety, firing bin blocks, etc. a manual safety is really redundant. Note that Glocks, most S&W M&P's and many others don't even have one. So, unlike a cocked-and-locked 1911, the manual safety on an SR9 is truly optional.
Clovishound
Blackhawk
22/45 Fan said:
I would disagree that a manual safety is redundant on a striker fired weapon. If you look at the track record of NDs without a manual safety, I think it is a necessity. Sure, lots of people get by without incident with these weapons, and I'm sure someone will chime in with "the safety between your ears", but way too many people have injured themselves, or others with these weapons. Most of these incidents would not have happened if a manual safety were consistently used. I'm sure none of the individuals intended to put their finger on the trigger. Some of them didn't, the ND was caused by clothing, or even part of the holster activating the trigger. Most of these individuals were trained, many had far more training than a lot of us here on this forum.
The decision to a carry striker fired weapon without a manual safety is yours, but don't dismiss out of hand the possibility that they are a good idea.
I also fall into the category of liking the ergonomics of the manual safety on my SR9c. Mine comes off with a quick sweep of the thumb.
haymaker
Single-Sixer
I like the safety on my SR9c. It's very easy to manipulate yet small enough to be unobtrusive. I only wish it was mounted a little farther forward. Because of my big hands sometimes I have to change my grip just a little to flip it off safe. I like the 1911 style safety better but it just takes a little training with the SR9c. The secret is to get very familiar with the controls on your pistol.
Keep in mind not all striker fired weapons are like a glock. I think river did a smart thing adding a safety. I don't know how a m&p works but river and the xd are fully cocked when chambered. I love the grip safety on the xd, but would much rather have the thumb safety.
Not sure why people say striker fired weapons with safeties are redundant... Is a hammer gun that has a double action function redundant with a safety??? Funny nearly every one made has a safety.
Gaston Glock designed a military weapon and as great as it is, it was not really the best design for the average person to carry. In the right rig the weapon is totally safe, but drawing from a concealment holster you could have issues. It goes again back to training.
Not sure why people say striker fired weapons with safeties are redundant... Is a hammer gun that has a double action function redundant with a safety??? Funny nearly every one made has a safety.
Gaston Glock designed a military weapon and as great as it is, it was not really the best design for the average person to carry. In the right rig the weapon is totally safe, but drawing from a concealment holster you could have issues. It goes again back to training.
22/45 Fan
Hunter
Most hammer fired semi-auto pistols have decockers and a lot of them have decockers only with no an additional manual safety. Ruger made many decock-only hammer fired pistols as does Sig, HK and several others.modrifle3 said:
Don't get me wrong, I like and use the manual safety on my SR9c but see it as an extra safeguard as it makes the gun more "proprietary" so a child or ignorant adult can't just pick it up and pull the trigger. It is not an essential safety item for it's owner and the other features of the gun have that covered.
Also, many of the reported accidental (negligent?) discharges with Glocks are due to having to dry fire the gun before removing the slide assembly and the user forgetting about the round still in the chamber. Ruger, S&W and others have safeguards that let you field strip the gun without dry firing it.
Clovishound
Blackhawk
Most of the Glock NDs I read about are holstering/drawing the weapon. One discharged when the owner sat down in his car. The holster developed a crease that operated the trigger when he sat down.
The frequency of these NDs, particularly among well trained individuals leads me to believe that a manual safety is a necessary item on these weapons.
I will agree that the dry fire to disassemble feature bothers me as well. I cringe every time I see my buddy have to dry fire his prior to field striping it. I don't have a problem with dry firing per se. Having to do it for a routine maintenance procedure does seem like an invitation to disaster to me.
As I said, this is my opinion.
The frequency of these NDs, particularly among well trained individuals leads me to believe that a manual safety is a necessary item on these weapons.
I will agree that the dry fire to disassemble feature bothers me as well. I cringe every time I see my buddy have to dry fire his prior to field striping it. I don't have a problem with dry firing per se. Having to do it for a routine maintenance procedure does seem like an invitation to disaster to me.
As I said, this is my opinion.
22/45 Fan
Hunter
True and if everybody did that all the time there would never be a problem. However, not everyone does anything all the time. Accidents, slip-ups and mistakes happen but good design can make these things less likely to cause harm. Relying on perfect performance from everyone all the time is extremely naïve.modrifle3 said:
Naive ..... really? Depending on the mechanics of a firearm to overide the basic safety principles of handling a firearm is naive. Relying on people who choose to own and carry firearms to properly handle them is an expectation. If a person who is disassembling a weapon doesn't think to clear it first they have zero need for one!
22/45 Fan
Hunter
Nobel sentiment but again, very naïve. People make mistakes, have lapses and get distracted. Anything that helps avoid the bad consequences of these errors is good. Based on your concept, there would never be any automobile accidents either.modrifle3 said:
The time I'm most thankful for the manual safety is reholstering while seated inside a vehicle. I do try to avoid having to do that whenever possible but there's been times (such as going into the post office which is no carry) that I've had to do it. It's a rather awkward movement with a inside the waistband holster and tight belt. And of course I'm trying to not make it obvious what I'm doing at the same time.
And as 22/45 said things do happen. Eventually if you carry everyday you'll run into these awkward times. I'd not say unsafe times, just times when you have to move it around in ways that make proper traditional procedures you use at the range difficult or even impossible.
And as 22/45 said things do happen. Eventually if you carry everyday you'll run into these awkward times. I'd not say unsafe times, just times when you have to move it around in ways that make proper traditional procedures you use at the range difficult or even impossible.
I agree things happen, but stating that having to uncock a glock or xd etc to remove the slide is a bad design is not a fair statement.
Almost anystriker fired weapon has to be cleared and or the striker returned to a neutral position before the slide is removed. Ruger uses an ejector swing down that renders this not needed. As well as the XDM that uses a disconnector attached to the takedown lever. The m&p uses a disconnect also but the process to take one of those apart is similar to the ruger.
Glock requires the trigger be pulled, slide pushed slightly rearward and tabs depressed.
XD slide to the rear, lock it, swing assembly lever up, release slide, pull trigger.
Even the 22\45 requires the trigger be pulled to disassemble it.
A fair number of striker and internal hammer weapons require this.
Now the design advantage the Glock and XD have over the Ruger and M&P is simplicity in the field. These two field strip to 4 major components with no additional small parts to loose and render the gun unusable. As I have stated before the Glock is a combat weapon. It is not the average Joe weapon. It was designed for a specific purpose in combat and law enforcement and civilians feel in love with it, but it is void of extra safety features and idiot proofing.
Yes stuff happened but it isn't poor design it is poor execution by the handler. I will make mistakes but will never expect the weapons design to prevent them.
Almost anystriker fired weapon has to be cleared and or the striker returned to a neutral position before the slide is removed. Ruger uses an ejector swing down that renders this not needed. As well as the XDM that uses a disconnector attached to the takedown lever. The m&p uses a disconnect also but the process to take one of those apart is similar to the ruger.
Glock requires the trigger be pulled, slide pushed slightly rearward and tabs depressed.
XD slide to the rear, lock it, swing assembly lever up, release slide, pull trigger.
Even the 22\45 requires the trigger be pulled to disassemble it.
A fair number of striker and internal hammer weapons require this.
Now the design advantage the Glock and XD have over the Ruger and M&P is simplicity in the field. These two field strip to 4 major components with no additional small parts to loose and render the gun unusable. As I have stated before the Glock is a combat weapon. It is not the average Joe weapon. It was designed for a specific purpose in combat and law enforcement and civilians feel in love with it, but it is void of extra safety features and idiot proofing.
Yes stuff happened but it isn't poor design it is poor execution by the handler. I will make mistakes but will never expect the weapons design to prevent them.
22/45 Fan
Hunter
That is a correct statement but, as I understand it, a large number of the Glock AD's that occur due to "dry firing" it before take down happen to Law Enforcement personnel. The average officer is not a gun enthusiast and is not all that conversant with the details of his weapon.modrifle3 said:
F16Deuce said:
It's a personal preference thingie. I had a Glock .40 cal some years back and almost immediately traded it off because it had no manual safety. Great gun! Great trigger! Great dependablity! BUT NO MANUAL SAFETY and to me that means a great deal. Then there were additional "personal preference issues" between me and the Glock. I didn't like the bulk of the grip. It didn't point naturally for me. As I said ... great gun ... but not for me.
Out of curiosity I picked up a Ruger SR9C at a local gun store. Guess what! It pointed as naturally for me as it's possible to point naturally. Loved the trigger! Loved the ergonomics! AND IT HAD A MANUAL SAFETY!! The durn thing followed me home ... so I had to feed it!! And, after flawlessly running a thousand or so rounds of various ammo downrange and falling more in love with every time it went bang it's been my every day CC ever since!! Only in extremely rare instances would I park the SR9C and leave home with a smaller package due to the concealment factor dictated by the immediate circumstances. It's with me from the time I put my britches on in the morning until I take 'em off ... then it sleeps within a very short arm's reach.
Check the you tube video "DEA officer shots himself in classroom". In front of a classroom full of children, a DEA officer talks about his Glock 40 and how he is the only one in the room professional enough to use one-this 20 seconds before he accidentally puts a hollow point into his leg. We'd have to guess as a DEA agent he is well trained with his Glock 40, but he has an accidental discharge having a lapse in his thought process. Can happen to anyone. The only pistol I've ever felt entirely comfortable carrying without a safety is the LCP because the trigger travel is 49 inches and it takes two fingers to pull the trigger. Slight exaggeration, but you know. As a S&W 39 series guy for years, the SR-series gets high marks for safety and performance.
Similar threads
