Yet Another Peening Problem

[rdmiller]

Greetings from NH. I've had my SR9 for about 6 or 7 months, and have put about 5 or 6 hundred rounds through it. Started noticing the peening problem around 400 rounds. It has gotten progressively worse.

I have read that some folks are having both slides and barrels replaced. I noticed my slide has a divot opposite the extractor, and wondered if this is due to premature wear. It may be a feature to capture the next round. I just never noticed it before. Can someone confirm that this is a normal feature on their SR9?

I plan to send the piece back for the peening problem, and ask them to look at the magazine release, which is very stiff. Anything else I should be looking/asking for while they have it?

I love the feel of the SR9 in my hand. And it seems like a pretty good firearm if Ruger gets a few of these minor issues ironed out. I am surprised how stiff all of the springs are on it. When I take turns on friends 9mm's, all of them are much easier to rack and drop magazines. But I also notice that the SR9 has less recoil which I attribute to the stiffer slide spring.

Thanks,

Rick

 

[Ski]

My SR/9 slide does not have the "divot" shown in the picture.

 

[hawkeye]

Rick,

My barrel on my SR-9 does not show the peening you have on your barrel. I do have the little divot on my slide. I have about 400 rds thru my SR-9 at this point in time. I guess I'll need to watch my barrel for any unnecessary wear / peening in the future.

 

[graygun]

Ditto for mine in all the areas you showed. Flip your barrel over and look at the rear bock along those bottom edges and see if it has smallish indentations on either side. They are about midway along both edges on mine.

I tried to take pix of it but my lower-end Sanyo's macro doesn't show it clearly. It's supposed to be good down to 10mm.

My SR9 has 1,380 rds through it.

I don't know if the problems are "minor" ;it seems Ruger has less-than-minor problems in-house.

Has anyone had complete satisfaction with a new barrel or slide?

 

[rdmiller]

Thanks guys, for your feedback. I plan to contact Ruger on Monday and see what they want to do.

I tried to take pix of it but my lower-end Sanyo's macro doesn't show it clearly. It's supposed to be good down to 10mm.

I have the same issue on the bottom side. Below are a few photo's of that area.

 

[Dawg1]

Mine is peening like yours & on the barrel hood. It's still accurate & has not given me any problems after 800 rds. Will wait to see if it gives me any issues before I call Ruger.I use it primarly for the range,can't wait for the ghost trigger to come out. Love this pistol.

 

[graygun]

rdmiller: That's it...wonder what causes it?

 

[jhearne]

Thanks guys, for your feedback. I plan to contact Ruger on Monday and see what they want to do.

I tried to take pix of it but my lower-end Sanyo's macro doesn't show it clearly. It's supposed to be good down to 10mm.

I have the same issue on the bottom side. Below are a few photo's of that area.

That peening or wear is caused by the Barrel hitting the Camblock, I have the same wear as well. Take a look at the bottom of an assembled slide vs the frame.....line up the internals and the camblock has two wear spots where the barrel hits it when the gun cycles. This is what I can figure out for that wear.

The 'divot' in the slide/chamber area I have as well, what I can think of is that when the gun cycles and a hull is ejected, the left side of the casing rubs against that flat. About 1000 rounds or so on mine and it's about like that. Don't think the divot is from one or two hard impacts, but more like the first 400 rounds or so casings wearing the slide in. Never noticed until just now, but that's what I can think of. The empties are the only thing that come close to that spot and the D shape is inline with the contact a case would have ejecting.

These two wear spots though are just that, wear. I wouldn't worry until the gun malfunctions which may never happen to be honest. Knowing that mine has these two spots as well doesn't shake my trust in the gun.

I'd be more worried about the Barrel's tabs on the rear of it, I plan after I recover from my surgery to film (in 300 FPS) the SR9 cycling on multiple shots and angles in an attempt to see how bad the alignment is when it's fired. Bear with me though, I go in Tuesday, but could be down for a few months.

Josh

 

[rdmiller]

Josh et al,

Again, thanks for all the feedback. I concur with your assessment about camblock. I've noticed that pattern for a while, and like you haven't been terribly concerned with that. It's spread over a relatively larger area, with not a lot of deformation.

I did consider that the divot on the slide might be from the casing. And that is likely the cause. However, it surprises me that brass would result in that much wear on a cast stainless steel part.

Josh,

I just read a little about your surgery today. I wish you good luck on the procedure, and a speedy recovery.

Rick in NH

 

[jhearne]

Thanks man, the casings could cause the problem depending on how well the slides were cast. Also not all casings are brass, some aluminum, steel cased and even plated. But I've only shot brass or aluminum.

Also my company manufactures a chromed fluted roll that helps peel pine to make plywood. We also repair them, the shape that some of those rolls come back in is amazing. As strong as steel is, repetitive wear deforms it pretty well. Will try and get a pic or two of the rolls, new/old Monday if I think about it.

Josh

 

[rdmiller]

Thanks man, the casings could cause the problem depending on how well the slides were cast. Also not all casings are brass, some aluminum, steel cased and even plated. But I've only shot brass or aluminum.

Only brass here as well.

Also my company manufactures a chromed fluted roll that helps peel pine to make plywood. We also repair them, the shape that some of those rolls come back in is amazing. As strong as steel is, repetitive wear deforms it pretty well. Will try and get a pic or two of the rolls, new/old Monday if I think about it.

Josh

I hear you. Many years ago, as a young machinist, I worked in a plastic injection molding shop. Along with the glamorous job of building molds, as the newbie, I got to sharpen the re-grinder blades. These were like wood chippers that were used to recycle sprues and out of spec parts. Plastic does a number on tool steel. Probably had to sharpen them about once a month.

Come to think of it, the rough surface of the barrel probably scuffs up the casing upon first contact. And as it continues to slide along that surface, the "now rough edge" of the casing probably, loaded with steel particulate, erodes away the slide material slowly, but steadily.

I'll have to look at the wear marks again tomorrow to see if there's an obvious pattern to support that.

Good night for now.

 

[Landshark]

My SR9 (SN 330-72XXX) has 300 rounds through it as of today and the barrel ear peening on my pistol is identical to the above pic.

I'm very disapointed in Ruger's QC. I guess I'll be sending it to Ruger then getting rid of it.

Is there a number that you can call and get a return tag?

 

[jhearne]

My SR9 (SN 330-72XXX) has 300 rounds through it as of today and the barrel ear peening on my pistol is identical to the above pic.

I'm very disapointed in Ruger's QC. I guess I'll be sending it to Ruger then getting rid of it.

Is there a number that you can call and get a return tag?

The "Ear" peening is NOT a QC problem!

There's enough slack (I believe) that when the SR9 cycles, the barrel torques to one side or the other, letting the ears hit either leading edges of the Slide. This is not something that they will find during a test fire of your gun. Anything that presents itself over hundreds of rounds will be found by you, the end users. Sounds crappy I know, but the nature of the issue with the tab peening isn't a QC problem.

If you want to call Ruger about it, go ahead, but unless they give you a barrel with more tolerance on the ears, you'll see the same issue again. They need to stiffen up the barrel pivot in the Camblock if anything, think that would be the easiest fix, if the slack is indeed the problem.

Like I said earlier, atleast wait until I can see what a High Speed video of this looks like and post it later....I have access to a good camera that'll shoot a decent resolution in 300fps. The downside is that I'm going in for surgery Tuesday and recovery is going to be a long road.

Josh

 

[graygun]

Good idea re the 300 fps recording. I'd been wondering if the mfr had been doing something like that in an effort to t/s the problems with this gun. I hope they're doing more than just replacing parts.

I just noticed tab peening on mine when i looked at them through an opti visor. I noticed the left tab hits the the left side of the slide before being pushed home.

I 'll wait to see if Ruger has a true fix before sending mine in.

Edited for spelling.

 

[Landshark]

Josh

You're right about it not being a QC problem, my apologies. It's just frustrating that a new gun has to be sent in after 300-400 rounds.

I'm an old skeet shooter with a Browning O/U with 15,000 rounds through it and it's just now broken in. Same goes my my Rem 1100 with 10,000 rounds. I can live with a worn out part after 5000-10,000 rounds, but 300 rounds through a pistol is something I'd expect from an EAA type gun. I got on Ruger's web-site and sent the "man" a message. I suppose I'll either wait or try to sell or trade it.

Anybody want to trade their like new P-95 for my like new SR9? LOL!

Josh, please take care of yourself. Our broken toys mean nothing in the big scheme of things.

 

[Jumping Frog]

The "Ear" peening is NOT a QC problem!

Yes, it is a QC problem, but not in the way people usually think of QC.

It starts as a design problem. A high quality development process will do extensive QC testing as part of the design cycle, including lifecycle testing and failure analysis.

If guns are having issues in the field after 500-1000 rounds, then that is a design issue that QC lifecycle testing failed to identify. FAIL.

Building a reputation for needing factory recalls on newly designed models shortly after product introduction points to the same issue of a flawed design not being identified in pre-release QC testing. In other words, I have now concluded that Ruger has an organizational weakness in their development methodology and organization. I reach this conclusion after 35 years of product development and engineering management experience.

 

[3leggeddog]

The "Ear" peening is NOT a QC problem!

Yes, it is a QC problem, but not in the way people usually think of QC.

It starts as a design problem. A high quality development process will do extensive QC testing as part of the design cycle, including lifecycle testing and failure analysis.

If guns are having issues in the field after 500-1000 rounds, then that is a design issue that QC lifecycle testing failed to identify. FAIL.

Building a reputation for needing factory recalls on newly designed models shortly after product introduction points to the same issue of a flawed design not being identified in pre-release QC testing. In other words, I have now concluded that Ruger has an organizational weakness in their development methodology and organization. I reach this conclusion after 35 years of product development and engineering management experience.

I believe your 100% correct! Ruger needs to re-engineer the SR9.
They may have to replace more than just the barrel. How they address this may haunt them,their REPUTATION is at stake.

 

[rdmiller]

Well, I spoke to Ruger, in Prescott, AZ today. Told them I had a wear problem on my SR9, on the barrel tabs and the slide.

They were very nice about it. But they also responded as if they were unaware of any such problem. They indicated that this may be a normal thing. I indicated that I was concerned with safety, accuracy, and long term reliability. They reiterated that wear was normal, even as I described the severity of the problem. I offered to send them photos, but they were uninterested.

But they did suggest that if I were concerned, that I should send it back, and they would take a look at it. And that's what I plan to do.

Some one earlier suggested requesting that Ruger provide a prepaid shipping box. Did that work, or should I just send it off?

Cheers

Rick

 

[jhearne]

Sucks you have to send it in, but yes ask for a prepaid label. They should get you one.

Josh

 

[810wmb]

Well, I spoke to Ruger, in Prescott, AZ today. Told them I had a wear problem on my SR9, on the barrel tabs and the slide.

They were very nice about it. But they also responded as if they were unaware of any such problem. They indicated that this may be a normal thing. I indicated that I was concerned with safety, accuracy, and long term reliability. They reiterated that wear was normal, even as I described the severity of the problem. I offered to send them photos, but they were uninterested.

But they did suggest that if I were concerned, that I should send it back, and they would take a look at it. And that's what I plan to do.

Some one earlier suggested requesting that Ruger provide a prepaid shipping box. Did that work, or should I just send it off?

Cheers

Rick

when i sent mine in, i told them about following the peening problem on the net. they didn't say "they were unaware"

they were nice as could be. prompt repair and return.

i had a box - i had them email me a label the same day - i sent it in the next day, got it back a week later.