Glock 22 Gen 3...vs...Ruger SR40
- Thread starter JLH
- Start date
- Status
ColtPythonElite
Member
- Joined
- Jan 8, 2011
- Messages
- 10,477
Glock. It has a great track record.
JR24
Member
Can't speak for the full size but my current EDC is a SR40c and its done nothing but eat anything I feed it and shoot accurately to boot.
Glock ergonomics don't fit me personally, but its also a solid choice by all accounts. YMMV naturally.
Glock ergonomics don't fit me personally, but its also a solid choice by all accounts. YMMV naturally.
Blue Brick
Member
Ruger.
45_auto
Member
There's a reason that the Glock costs more.
You get what you pay for - your choice.
You get what you pay for - your choice.
What is that reason?
I am sure some people say that about Bose speakers as well.
Not saying there isn't a valid reason, but I own a Glock 19 and an SR9c, and I've yet to find a reason why they Glock should cost more...
horsemen61
Member
- Joined
- Oct 20, 2011
- Messages
- 6,767
I'd go with the glock that's just me though I am a fan the SR series from ruger has never really done it or me if you know what I mean.
Blue Brick
Member
And what is that?? Unsupported chambers and KBooms? I’ll pass on that. Hi Point cost a fraction of a Glock, yet can you find an accidental KBoom?
CZ9shooter
Member
- Joined
- Jul 29, 2012
- Messages
- 1,117
I have an SR that I really like. Feels really good in the hand. I have shot a few Glocks, but I just cant warm up to them.
And as far as getting what you pay for.... thats another reason I am a fan of Ruger products. They offer an excellent value when compared to many other top makers. High quality products that arent artificially hyped up with high prices and sneaky marketing tactics, at least not as much. Plus, they are an Amercian company.
I once read somewhere that when Glocks first hit the U.S. market they were asking around $250 for them. Sales were bad because people perceived them as cheap junk. They doubled the price and then they sold like hot cakes.
Get what you pay for? Retail price has very little to do with the quality or cost of manufature of a product. Not just with firearms, with many products. People will pay what they THINK or FEEL it is worth.
Sorry, rant over. I vote Ruger.
And as far as getting what you pay for.... thats another reason I am a fan of Ruger products. They offer an excellent value when compared to many other top makers. High quality products that arent artificially hyped up with high prices and sneaky marketing tactics, at least not as much. Plus, they are an Amercian company.
I once read somewhere that when Glocks first hit the U.S. market they were asking around $250 for them. Sales were bad because people perceived them as cheap junk. They doubled the price and then they sold like hot cakes.
Get what you pay for? Retail price has very little to do with the quality or cost of manufature of a product. Not just with firearms, with many products. People will pay what they THINK or FEEL it is worth.
Sorry, rant over. I vote Ruger.
So anyway as someone who owns a Glock 19 and an SR9c here are my thoughts
Pros for SR series
-Adjustable Sights
-IMO a better trigger, but not a huge difference
-IMO a better grip (with extension), again not a huge deal for me though
Pro or con depending on your preferences are the safety features...two of which are easy to remove.
Pro for the Glock
-Accessories and magazines are plentiful and cheaper than most other guns
Thruthfully, just because of the accessories aspect, I would likely go for the Glock if I had to choose one or the other.
Pros for SR series
-Adjustable Sights
-IMO a better trigger, but not a huge difference
-IMO a better grip (with extension), again not a huge deal for me though
Pro or con depending on your preferences are the safety features...two of which are easy to remove.
Pro for the Glock
-Accessories and magazines are plentiful and cheaper than most other guns
Thruthfully, just because of the accessories aspect, I would likely go for the Glock if I had to choose one or the other.
While I think the SR9 is the better gun in many respects (trigger, ergonomics, sights, no history of kabooms since it was designed from the start to handle .40S&W, customer service, etc), I'd probably just pick the Glock because mags, parts, and accessories are cheaper and easier to find.
mgmorden
Member
Both will serve you well, so I don't think you're making a mistake with either.
Overall having shot both (but the 9mm versions thereof), I think the Ruger is the better gun, and a better value. It feels better in the hand, the sights are better, and its just as reliable. AND it costs less.
That said, as has already been mentioned Glock magazines are cheaper (particularly used Glock 22 mags as there's lots of LE surplus out there) so if you want to add a lot of magazines then the Glock may balance out on cost. I try to keep 5 mags for most of my pistols but 2 may be all you need.
Again though, I'd stress that neither of these guns is a "bad" pistol, so whichever you get shoot it and enjoy it without looking back.
Overall having shot both (but the 9mm versions thereof), I think the Ruger is the better gun, and a better value. It feels better in the hand, the sights are better, and its just as reliable. AND it costs less.
That said, as has already been mentioned Glock magazines are cheaper (particularly used Glock 22 mags as there's lots of LE surplus out there) so if you want to add a lot of magazines then the Glock may balance out on cost. I try to keep 5 mags for most of my pistols but 2 may be all you need.
Again though, I'd stress that neither of these guns is a "bad" pistol, so whichever you get shoot it and enjoy it without looking back.
HankR
Member
Ruger
If they were both the same price I'd get the Ruger -- I prefer having a safety and I think the Ruger is a better gun (never even fondled a sr40, but I did like the SR9C and the SR45 I've shot).
I'd probably even pay $50 extra for the Ruger, but that's my preference w/ the safety. I'd definitely get the Ruger for $50 less.
If they were both the same price I'd get the Ruger -- I prefer having a safety and I think the Ruger is a better gun (never even fondled a sr40, but I did like the SR9C and the SR45 I've shot).
I'd probably even pay $50 extra for the Ruger, but that's my preference w/ the safety. I'd definitely get the Ruger for $50 less.
JustinJ
Member
When one considers the vastly higher number of Glocks in existence and the vastly higher amount of rounds that have been through them it becomes apparently clear how invalid that comparison is.
To the OP, i'd say it depends on usage. If this gun is expected to see hard use and high round count i'd go with the Glock, no question. If not, ergonomics and personal preference can be more of a consideration. However, even if just for HD and range use i'd prefer the Glock as reliability is second to none.
Blue Brick
Member
It’s a very valid point. Is it parts per million error rate to you? How many Glock’s must be produced so that one can explode? Ever buy a police trade in? Cosmetically they are very rough, but inside they are barely used. Glock has a track record of catastrophic failures that can’t be ignored.
Texshooter
Member
- Joined
- Jan 22, 2004
- Messages
- 481
In the .40 - Ruger no doubt. The .40 cal in Glock was an afterthought. They knew the kool-aid drinkers would buy it regardless.
And add that to the fact that Ruger has a higher level of corporate integrity as well.
And add that to the fact that Ruger has a higher level of corporate integrity as well.
Tough decision, I'd thought about both at one time, and ended up with a 229 in 40. Owned a G20 and love my SR45.
Either one is a good gun, I loved the feel of both. As always the glock has a reputation as #1 in plastic. IMHO the rugers are pretty darned good value and accurate as hell, but on par with the ugliness of the glocks. I like the external safety on the SR's, make's me more comfortable when handing it over to my 9yo son to shoot.
Too bad you can't find a used M&P 40 in that price range.
Either one is a good gun, I loved the feel of both. As always the glock has a reputation as #1 in plastic. IMHO the rugers are pretty darned good value and accurate as hell, but on par with the ugliness of the glocks. I like the external safety on the SR's, make's me more comfortable when handing it over to my 9yo son to shoot.
Too bad you can't find a used M&P 40 in that price range.
RBid
Member
I have owned or fired multiple SR pistols and Glocks. Still own an SR9c and two Glocks.
The SR has a far better trigger, in live or dry fire. It has a more universally enjoyed grip, is better looking, offers better standard sights, has a thumb safety (I dislike this 'feature'), and has a very low bore and excellent recoil management.
The Glock has far better market support and better surface treatment.
I would go with the Glock
The SR has a far better trigger, in live or dry fire. It has a more universally enjoyed grip, is better looking, offers better standard sights, has a thumb safety (I dislike this 'feature'), and has a very low bore and excellent recoil management.
The Glock has far better market support and better surface treatment.
I would go with the Glock
45_auto
Member
hoofan said:
The same reason that the vast majority of shooters with a serious interest in how well they shoot don't choose Rugers. Look at the results of ANY competitive service-caliber handgun competition and count the number of Rugers. It won't take you long.
The Rugers are clunky and ill-balanced for most shooters if you're interested in optimizing your performance. Although mechanically there's nothing really wrong with them, and realistically most people don't shoot often enough or well enough to notice any difference in the way they handle.
http://www.aafgidpa.com/admin/equpment_survey.htm
http://www.idpa.com/blog/?tag=/2012-IDPA-Nationals
Last edited:
I own a Ruger SR9c and am bar none impressed with the accuracy for a compact. First time at the range I had no problem burying all of the ten round magazine into a ten inch plate at 25yds shooting off hand. The ergonomics fit me well and made it easy to hit the target.
But honestly, depending on duty of the pistol, If you are buying for defense purposes, that doesn't matter. If this is going to be a defensive pistol then your only concern is hitting a target within 10yds max. Either one would do that.
I've yet to get on the Glock Wagon and have never owned one. The biggest advantage I see with the Glock is the supporting market. Everything thing from triggers to barrel conversions they are like the small block chevy of the gun world. After market goodies are plentiful.
Quick suggestion, take each into stance and aim at a spot on a wall, if this is an option, and see which one more naturally aligns with the target. I really don't think you can go wrong with either one.
Best advise, if you still can't decide, get em both.
But honestly, depending on duty of the pistol, If you are buying for defense purposes, that doesn't matter. If this is going to be a defensive pistol then your only concern is hitting a target within 10yds max. Either one would do that.
I've yet to get on the Glock Wagon and have never owned one. The biggest advantage I see with the Glock is the supporting market. Everything thing from triggers to barrel conversions they are like the small block chevy of the gun world. After market goodies are plentiful.
Quick suggestion, take each into stance and aim at a spot on a wall, if this is an option, and see which one more naturally aligns with the target. I really don't think you can go wrong with either one.
Best advise, if you still can't decide, get em both.
Well the OP didn't mention anything about competition.
Glock has been around for much longer than the SR series.
Glock SPONSORS competitors
Glock made guns SPECIFICALLY for competition (G34, G35)
I still don't see that is a "reason" why a STANDARD Glock should cost more.
- Status
