Ruger American Pistol

[Phineas Bluster]

Deleted

[35remington]

Thirty years ago if someone would have suggested that most cops would be carrying an auto loader with no manually operated safety all the administrators would have fainted dead away and the lawyers would have all been screaming that they would be indefensible in any OIS.

How thinking does change. The community seems to have shrugged it off with the comment that the pistols work as intended. A correctly positioned safety is the only choice on shotguns and AR's. Nobody seems to have a problem with it or thinks it will get them killed.

Hate small safeties and would rather have no safety then but for sure it is not a pocket gun, holster only.

Waiting to hear of a shooting test of the guns as to reliability. If it runs it can't be all bad.

[FergusonTO35]

Seems like a nice gun but doesn't give me any desire to switch from Glock. I would be more interested if it was a DA/SA design. I wonder if this means the SR series will be orphaned soon.

[contender1]

I have personally handled some of the new Americans,, in both 9mmm & 45 acp. I have also shot one of the 9mm's. Now,,, I'm first & foremost a SA revolver guy. I also shoot a 1911 in USPSA. I've hunted with T/C Contenders for decades. I own a selection of many different firearms,,, and found the American is quite nice to shoot. I'm trying to wriggle in a way to try the 45 acp.

The American is aimed at potential LEO's & military contracts. PLUS,,, it is "American Made."

[sandman228]

I'm thinking sometime down the road I would like to own 1 of these ,I have yet to see 1 in any local shop though . I do think there eventually going to replace the sr series and down the road I'm sure there will be compact models .

[Schrag4]

I really like the SR series, I hope it doesn't replace them. That is, unless these new ones are just as slim in the grip. That's one thing that really sets the SR series apart from some other guns - the incredibly slim grip for a double-stack.

Phineas, you must live in a restricted state. If memory serves me correctly, standard mags on this gun hold 17 rounds.

[Combat Diver]

Reread the post chambering was .45 not 9x19.


CD

[Petrol & Powder]

I'm sorry but I just cannot get excited about yet another Glock knock-off.
It's a polymer framed, striker-fired, high capacity, semi-auto pistol with a square cross section slide. It operates on the Browning tilting barrel system and the barrel locks to the slide via a squared off ejection port and squared section of the breach end of the barrel. [A la' SIG]
It is a Glock knock off.

I like Glock's, I think they do what they are designed to do. I think they are very reliable and very durable. I think they are safe and I think they are more than accurate enough for what they are called upon to do.
Not saying the Ruger is Bad. Not saying it doesn't has some slightly different features, Not saying the Glock is better. I am saying that there is NOTHING revolutionary or even better about a Ruger American, Springfield XD, S&W M&P, blah, blah, blah....... They are all polymer framed, striker fired, high capacity pistols.

Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.

Let the flaming begin.

[35remington]

P&P, interesting that you should opine an automatic that lacks a manual safety is safe. 30 years ago, as I pointed out, police administrators would have fainted dead away at the suggestion such a pistol would be issued to officers. Today nobody even gives it a second thought, and they even imply having a safety makes the pistol unsafe.

How times do change.

[Petrol & Powder]

We could debate for hours about the benefits and dangers of manual safeties and probably end up right where we started.

I've never felt that a person that is prone to pull a trigger when they shouldn't, would be impeded by a manual safety. That same person will simply disengage the manual safety and STILL pull the trigger when they shouldn't. Accidental or unintentional discharges rarely occur because of guns "going off" due to the lack of a safety but rather because users cause the gun to fire. A manual safety is not an impediment strong enough to block incompetence.

The modern DA revolver is considered to be perfectly safe without a manual safety but a Glock is not? The weak link isn't the gun; the weak link is the operator.
Some designs require a manual safety to be acceptable. I would never carry a 1911 with a round in the chamber and the hammer cocked without the safety engaged. Carrying a S&W 686 with 6 rounds in the cylinder and the hammer down is perfectly acceptable. The difference isn't the manual safety or the lack of it; the difference is the design.

[FergusonTO35]

I worked for a large agency for 6 years. Most cops are not gun people like we are. Some of them are very skilled and safe with firearms, some of them are a danger to themselves and others. Most fall somewhere in the middle. All the long time coppers I worked with told me that the main cause of ND is not clearing the chamber after removing the mag. Some folks are just never going to consistently remember to do that.

If they are to continue carrying a gun on the job they would be much better off carrying a DAO revolver for the safety of themselves and others. Long and heavy trigger pull, no single action, and swing the cylinder out to load and unload. Only 6 shots on board so you can't spray and pray when adrenaline kicks in.

[dkf]

Many of the reviews I have seen on the new Ruger American pistol is that the weird shaped squared off beavertail area hits knuckles and really starts to hurt after a few mags. Plus the slide releases pretty easy when inserting a full mag. Quite frankly I think the SR series of pistols are nicer and they don't have that issue.

[gray wolf]

Simply put, it's a Sig P320 knock off, and the trigger reset is a lot longer and not as nice IMHO .
What you should look at and try if possible is a Sig p320 compact in 45 ACP.

As for the no safety ? it means a heck of a lot more gun handling skill for the operator.

I don't recommend it, or the likes of it, for a first time, first buy gun.

I have handled and shot the P320 45 compact and it shoots to about 90% like my 1911
Cost is about the same.

[FergusonTO35]

That's one thing I miss about Bill running the company. Most of what they sold was their own design. Nowadays they apply their own touches to the creations of other companies.

[Petrol & Powder]

.................


As for the no safety ? it means a heck of a lot more gun handling skill for the operator.

I don't recommend it, or the likes of it, for a first time, first buy gun............


.

I would submit that a gun without a manual safety is FAR easier for a novice to operate safely. Pull the trigger when you want it to go bang and DON'T pull the trigger if you don't want it to go bang. Doesn't get any easier than that.

[35remington]

I would feel decently comfortable carrying a DA revolver in a concealment holster that had some amount of the trigger guard exposed.....if you could find such a thing. A Glock? Not a chance.

I would also be much more comfortable with a DA revolver over a Glock for holster less, drop the gun in your pocket and go about your business carry.

Comparisons to the DA revolver when speaking of Glocks can only go so far before they start to get a bit nonsensical. The revolver's much longer and heavier pull is at least to some degree less liable to AD than is a Glock. Just the nature of DA wheel guns.

[Petrol & Powder]

But you would agree that a Glock or a DA revolver will not go bang unless the trigger is depressed?

[Schrag4]

I don't think a carry gun should ever be flopping around in a pocket, a purse, anything. It should be in a holster, regardless of how heavy the trigger pull is.

I side with those who say that a safety makes a handgun less safe. Just like some idiots shoot themselves because "it was empty," still others shoot themselves because "the safety was on." Idiots who own Glocks don't make that particular mistake. I also shudder to think what would happen if the safety becomes engaged or disengaged, unbeknownst to the person carrying it. Could cost them a very valuable second when they draw, or (again if they're an idiot) could lead them to believe that pressing the trigger is safe when it's not.

[gray wolf]

I would submit that a gun without a manual safety is FAR easier for a novice to operate safely. Pull the trigger when you want it to go bang and DON'T pull the trigger if you don't want it to go bang. Doesn't get any easier than that.

My comments are NOT about ease of operation, my goodness, that's a given.
It's about people that have no experience with firearms safety, but think they do.
On my planet there live many people that flat out should not have firearms

Saying keep your finger off the trigger means nothing to some people, Saying it 50 times means nothing.

I am really surprised I even have to defend what I said. But I understand the point being made.

[35remington]

Much much easier to accidentally make a Glock go bang than a DA revolver..... so claiming they both go bang when the trigger is deliberately pulled ignores all the circumstances when it's easier to make a Glock go off accidentally with a non deliberate act. So comparing the two and claiming the Glock is just as safe under the same carry conditions isn't making any sense to me.....because it isn't as safe as a DA revolver.

I'd rather carry a 1911 without a trigger guard covering holster AND with the safety off than a Glock with the same sort of holster....because a firing grasp must be on the 1911 before it will discharge assuming the grip safety hasn't been deactivated. Brushing a Glock against something or making a hasty and ill positioned grab for it while it resides loose in your pocket or in a non trigger guard covering holster may well fire it in such a condition....which is why nobody recommends anything but a holster that covers the trigger guard with a Glock. No sane person carries a Glock loose in a pocket.

Whether the striker fired boys want to admit it or not, a Glock or any clone that has a trigger that approximates a 1911 in pull weight....and the triggers aren't that different unless a trigger job is done on said 1911.........is pretty much analogous to a 1911 carried cocked, manual safety off, and grip safety deactivated. Such carry would give everyone the heebie jeebies if it was a 1911....but a Glock ain't much different than that, so they may need to justify it in their own minds in terms of safe carry (meaning less chance of of AD) whether it makes sense or not. Rational analysis suggests "not."

Both would go off with about a 5 lb. trigger pull, give or take.

Think about it. That's pretty much a direct comparison. A revolver? A Glock ain't one of those. More like the described 1911 with the active safety off and the passive safety deactivated. That's about as far from a DA revolver as you can get.

Schrag, whether you think a carry gun should be flopping around in a pocket or not.....that is what many do anyway. You'd be nuts to do it with a Glock. Or any striker fired safety less pistol. For reasons of consistent presentation I prefer a holster even for pocket carry, but if I had to do it, and sometimes circumstances may require it, the revolver leads here.

A safetyless gun is good in making it go bang when you want it to as there's nothing to forget....but a safetyless gun is easier to make go bang when you don't want it to as described above. Glocks are more prone to AD's than the mentioned revolvers, for sure.

Acknowledging that the Glock requires a holster that covers the trigger and then trying to argue there's no downside to how it's configured is nonsensical. If there wasn't a downside it wouldn't be common sense and practice to never use it in a holster that doesn't cover the trigger, would it?

Having it go bang when the trigger is pulled a relatively short distance and with relatively light poundage for actuation, with nothing else required to do so, IS a downside. Sorry, but there is no weapon system made that does not have an actuation weakness.

[Petrol & Powder]

My comments are NOT about ease of operation, my goodness, that's a given.
It's about people that have no experience with firearms safety, but think they do.
On my planet there live many people that flat out should not have firearms

Saying keep your finger off the trigger means nothing to some people, Saying it 50 times means nothing.

I am really surprised I even have to defend what I said. But I understand the point being made.

Gray wolf, that wasn't a personal attack and if you took it as such, my apologies.
I'm not asking you to defend your view and in fact, I agree with it.
Telling someone to keep their finger off the trigger does no good if they don't actually do it and telling them 50 more times doesn't improve that effort. We are in agreement there.
The same holds true for a mechanical safety. They will simply disengage the safety or fail to re-engage the safety. The problem isn't the gun, the problem is the operator. You just cannot design a gun that will compensate for poor operation.
I've trained a lot of people how to shoot and I've been around a lot of people learning how to shoot. Some folks get it and some don't.

My point is - some designs are a bit more forgiving than others but mechanical safeties are no better than the person using them.

I think we are actually saying the same thing.

[35remington]

For those that don't know how to handle a pistol with a safety under a stress situation, here's a hint:

Practice. If you have one gun with a safety, the other guns should have safeties in the same location...my M and P 40 has a safety in the exact same location as my 1911's. Cross training is good.

The AR, shotgun and 3 gun shooters (many of whom use 1911 pattern pistols) that shoot under duress somehow manage it and don't proselytize to have the safeties removed on their long guns, nor does SWAT, nor does the military.

If you're a goof that doesn't intend to familiarize yourself with your piece, get a DA revolver. Then you have nothing to remember and nothing to forget, except maybe if you loaded the gun, and a revolver lets you see that pretty easily at a glance, too.

[Petrol & Powder]

35 Remington , I'm not going to go down the Glock vs. 1911 rabbit hole but suffice to say they are rather different platforms. I believe both of those platforms are adequately safe on their face. That is to say that neither a 1911 or Glock is inherently unsafe by design. They both require a competent user to be safe in the hands of the operator but the basic designs of both are sound.

Passive safeties are a bit more forgiving in the hands of poorly trained people or people under a great deal of stress, to a point.
I own and shoot a lot of different platforms. I've trained a lot of shooters and been around a lot of new shooters. Some people get it and some don't but the gun can only compensate for so much. In the end it comes down to the user regardless of the system.


I have a H&K P7 that is a very safe gun if you remember to decock it by relaxing your grip. The New Jersey State Police issued the P7M13 for several years but had a lot of accidental discharges when troopers attempted to re-holster the gun under stress and still had a death grip on the gun and their finger in the trigger guard. The same failure would occur with a 1911 if you didn't re-engage the safety. That's not a gun failure, that's a user failure. There's only so much engineering you can pour into that problem before you bump up against human failure.

[35remington]

True, all of the above. I'm just pointing out the ridiculousness of the assertion that the Glock is safer because it doesn't have a safety. If you suggested the removal of a safety on any gun that already has one everyone would think you had lost your mind.

The fact that a Glock never had one does not give it a free pass in this department. It is as liable to AD as any platform I can think of, and a great deal more liable to AD than many alternatives. The striker fired fans have to deal with that whether they agree with that position or not, because no matter what they believe it's still gonna happen to the unattentive anyway.

[35remington]

And I'll further comment that 30 years ago you would have had a great many arguing with great passion that the Glock is, in fact, inherently unsafe by design as comparison would have been to the DA revolver in use at the time, and in that comparison the Glock suffers.

Our perception of mechanical devices may change, but the devices themselves did not.

[Schrag4]

IMO, the only situation where safety-less striker-fired guns are more prone to AD/ND is when something gets into the trigger guard unbeknownst to the person holstering the gun. I'm thinking of the videos where a shirt tail or the end of a drawstring gets into the holster with the gun. In those cases, an activated traditional safety would have completely prevented any discharge, but a DA revolver could still go off. I disagree almost completely that any other sort of AD/ND is caused by the safety-less striker-fired design. I don't care what gun you have, you should double or triple check that the're no magazine and the chamber is empty before you consider it safe enough to go pulling the trigger on. Anything less is a game of Russian Roulette, no matter the gun.

I still stand by my position that a gun should have a holster that covers the trigger guard, even if it has a long, heavy DA trigger or a traditional safety. A safety can become disengaged. Other things can happen, use your imagination. I realize there are many who don't see it that way.

[Petrol & Powder]

IMO, the only situation where safety-less striker-fired guns are more prone to AD/ND is when something gets into the trigger guard unbeknownst to the person holstering the gun. I'm thinking of the videos where a shirt tail or the end of a drawstring gets into the holster with the gun. In those cases, an activated traditional safety would have completely prevented any discharge, but a DA revolver could still go off. I disagree almost completely that any other sort of AD/ND is caused by the safety-less striker-fired design. I don't care what gun you have, you should double or triple check that the're no magazine and the chamber is empty before you consider it safe enough to go pulling the trigger on. Anything less is a game of Russian Roulette, no matter the gun.

I still stand by my position that a gun should have a holster that covers the trigger guard, even if it has a long, heavy DA trigger or a traditional safety. A safety can become disengaged. Other things can happen, use your imagination. I realize there are many who don't see it that way.

I AGREE !!.

A trigger and a manual safety are both operated by the same idiot. We can create countless anecdotal situations that result in accidental or negligent discharges but they all come from the trigger being depressed. The inclusion of a manual safety only prevents an AD when that manual safety is engaged and if we rely on a human to operate that manual safety we are no better off than we would be without it.
The weak link is not the mechanical safety, it is the human in control of that safety.

[gray wolf]

The UN-trained and to add, the untrained under stress is a situation that's behind the curve to begin with,
and soon to go south.

With gun ownership comes responsibility, not only to ones self, but to everyone that comes in contact with said gun owner.

Some people think you buy a gun, buy some ammo, shoot 20 rounds,
put it in the wrong holster, held up by the wrong belt ---------- and all is good.
My concerns are with the unlearned, people that refuse to get learned.

I train with my 1911, I train hard with it, the moves are second nature,
tell me the safety is a hindrance or the grip safety only gets in the way would only show ignorance.
I can tell in 5 minutes if a person is ready to start training from the holster.
Most think they are, most are wrong.

[Petrol & Powder]

".......Some people think you buy a gun, buy some ammo, shoot 20 rounds,
put it in the wrong holster, held up by the wrong belt ---------- and all is good.
My concerns are with the unlearned, people that refuse to get learned......"

/\ Yep /\ You're right and there isn't a damn thing you can do about it.


So.... you're a responsible gun owner but not everyone else is.

We can't fix this with gun design, there are a lot of people that shouldn't have any gun of any design.

[gray wolf]

Just about exactly what I have been saying.
Some people understand they don't know certain things,
and seek assistance with the learning process, Some even take it seriously.

Some know everything and refuse to be told or shown anything.

This is not a problem if your shooting marbles, bad-mitten, or doing your laundry.

[35remington]

Schrag, you forgot to mention holsterless carry with a safetyless striker fired is more ill advised than with any other type of pistol. So there's more to its downside than just reholstering the gun. Many will carry holsterless anyway. The design does not make this "as safe as any other pistol" when carried in this common way.

I agree that there's only so much we can do to protect the ill informed from themselves, but some people just never get the word. To claim a safetyless striker fired pistol is just as safe as any other design, for them, is clearly incorrect, and there's a whole lot of those kind of people out there.

[Schrag4]

I think where we disagree is how we think unsafe behavior should be addressed. You keep bringing up holsterless carry. Your solution is to make the gun a less effective shooter by making the trigger heavier, because it (holsterless carry) is going to happen anyway, right?

My problem with that approach is that it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. It makes unsafe behavior more acceptable to some people for the very reasons you point out. If you tell them they should carry in a holster, they'll just say "the safety is on" or "the trigger is heavy." They'll cite responses from knowledgeable gun owners like you as their justification for their unsafe behavior.

I much prefer to expend my effort drilling into someone's head that if the trigger isn't pressed then the gun won't go off, and if you carefully put it in a holster that covers the trigger guard, then the trigger won't get pressed while it's in the holster. From that point on, it doesn't matter what design they have if they understand those truths and behave accordingly - they will be just as safe, as in 100%. It's not a difficult concept, and even the most casual gun owner will get it long before they understand the intricacies of different safety systems, or single action vs double action, etc.

[Tackleberry41]

Finally got to handle one of these pistols. LGS had 2 of them in the case when I stopped to pick up something else. Said the 45 didn't even make it into the case it sold so fast. Ruger required them to buy 4 guns, couldn't buy less. Had 2 9s in the case, handled well. Liked the ambi controls. $500 seems to be a pretty good price, and hopefully Ruger isnt like Remington where they put out a gun then try to work out the bugs.

[35remington]

No, the problem is that no matter how you address it, people will not do what you suggest. The question is, then, given that many will do the wrong thing, what choice is therefore best for that individual that is not an enthusiast that bothers to apply good information or is even aware of it in the first place?

The problem isn't failing to address unsafe behavior. The problem is that it fails to address actual, rather than ideal, human behavior.

You can drill endlessly into their head if the trigger isn't pressed the gun won't go off....uh huh. They get that. Then they drop the gun in a pocket and make it very easy to press the trigger accidentally when reaching for it. Kinda moots your point.

You can address unsafe behavior until you're blue in the face. Some will not get the word or not bother to be competent enough to apply advice. For these types, and there are many out there, there are such things as handgun designs that are safer, and less safe.

The answer for the non enthusiast isn't to recommend a choice that's "safe enough" IF they do exactly what is popularly recommended as they likely will not get or will not apply that information. The answer is to recommend a choice that is safer no matter what they do.

[Petrol & Powder]

I believe we are all thinking the same thing and expressing it differently.

[FergusonTO35]

Back on topic, the more I think about it the more I find that the Ruger American pistol looks alot like the old P series.

[Dan Cash]

...is that the weird shaped squared off beavertail area hits knuckles and really starts to hurt after a few mags. ....

How the heck does a "beaver Tail," get to rap your knuckles?

[dkf]

How the heck does a "beaver Tail," get to rap your knuckles?

Watch from 15:50 to around 19:00. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxqL9L-0sN8

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DxqL9L-0sN8)The American also doesn't accept SR mags, despite looking very similar. Pretty typical lack of thought from them though.