I have both. Just my feelings. Both have been 100%. The ruger for some reason "feels" bigger in hand. The regular security 9 (G19) feels bettee in my hand than the G19 though. So take it all with a grain of salt. The trigger also feels nicer than the glock to me (hammer fired).

Another thing i noticed with the pinky extension on the compact 9. It is just about the same length as the 15 rounds magazine at that point . Just might as well carry the 15 rounder then

 

My gun smithy is a glock fan, but he sure likes the Security 9

 

This flood of budget 9's over the past few years reveals how much margin in built into the price of a Glock.

Ruger LC9s with goofy looking OEM mag.

 

Not at all a fan of that Ruger.

Feels like a cheap POS

 

I agree, a friend of mine bought one. In fairness, he likes it and it has been dependable. It just looks and feels really cheap to me.

 

https://www.handgunhero.com/compare/ruger-security-9-compact-vs-glock-g26-gen4

I like the rear of the slide of the Ruger, that's about it.

The G26 is my favorite GLOCK, so I'm a little biased.

Also, I don't care if the GLOCK is $200 more. In the long run, $200 isn't going to change much for me. I'll pay the premium to have a GLOCK.

 

The "Pro" version of the security 9 might not be a bad gun but I have a much greater familiarity with Glocks. And for the size of either gun (I actually like single-stacks better) I'd rather have a G27 with a G33 357 barrel and a KKM 40-to-9 conversion barrel and a couple of mags for shooting what used to be the cheaper ammo.

 

good thread. will return time permitting.

 

Let's face it, Glock is one of the older designs around right now. The G17 was introduced in 1982. The Glock series of handguns aren't "special" anymore. Today's Glocks aren't as nice as earlier versions - since they dropped the Tenifer finish and added MIM parts.

There is no reason that other companies can't make a gun as good or better than a Glock. And at a lower price point.

 

Maybe so, but the Security 9 isn’t it imho.

 

Each to their own but I would pay the extra $200 for the Glock 26 any day and twice on Sunday. The Ruger Security 9 does not impress me to be anywhere near as durable as the Glock 26 or Glock 19 for those that might find that important to them. Nice to see firearms for pretty much any need and budget though.

 

with the larger mag, which fits fine and leaves no "gag" due to supplied sleeve, the Ruger capacity is significantly larger. to each his own.

 

I see a lot of these guns (beretta, S&W, CZ, Glock, etc) to be very interchangeable. You’re not getting much difference in operation, reliability, or durability.

It’s like choosing premium defense ammunition. Some may be said to be the “best, for expansion, penetration, etc. But the real difference you’re looking at is a fraction of an inch in difference between many of them.

I guess what I am saying is find one you like, can afford, and shoot well, and you will be just fine. Everyone’s always chasing that “high” of the best gun.

 

Yes it’s built to LCP quality standards. It’s like a big LCP.

The Ruger SR9 is a much nicer pistol, in my opinion.

SR series are pretty decent pistols.

 

Agreed

 

Let's face it, Glock is one of the older designs around right now. The G17 was introduced in 1982. The Glock series of handguns aren't "special" anymore. Today's Glocks aren't as nice as earlier versions - since they dropped the Tenifer finish and added MIM parts.

There is no reason that other companies can't make a gun as good or better than a Glock. And at a lower price point.

True, but Glocks just work.

 

Let's face it, Glock is one of the older designs around right now. The G17 was introduced in 1982. The Glock series of handguns aren't "special" anymore. Today's Glocks aren't as nice as earlier versions - since they dropped the Tenifer finish and added MIM parts.

There is no reason that other companies can't make a gun as good or better than a Glock. And at a lower price point.

I agree, but it sure as heck isn’t the Security 9

 

I'm sure the Ruger Security 9 is not bad. Never tried one out honestly, because I already own Glocks...and there's only the price that's clearly better.

Also, this is my opinion, informed by years of Ruger brand experience and the Ruger forum, that Ruger's consistency and QC is not very impressive. At one time perhaps, but since the Ruger brand has expanded in the last 10 years, generally quality has gone down.
In comparison I think Glock runs a pretty tight ship.

 

Not to mention that the Security 9 is clearly from their cheap seats. Ruger has a couple different tiers of production.

 

I own a g26 and that thing is no way comparable, it's cheap light plastic that reminds me of the worst gun I ever owned(Ruger LCP). Sure it might go bang most of the time but many of the newer Rugers feel like cheap junk to me.

 

Ruger goes downhills, IMO. Just look at their 18% sales’ decline in 2019.

 

I find the Ruger interesting, might pick one up at $300. Trump bucks are like found money anyway.

 

I don’t understand why anyone would buy this Ruger over a used Glock.

 

The Ruger is probably an ok pistol with a good warranty and cheaper price.
The G26 may not be “exciting” to some, but it is a well proven design with decades of successful use by everybody from private citizens to special ops. A pistol of few parts which can be completely stripped to its smallest part with nothing more than a poker.
And those parts are available everywhere, along with magazines.
My G26 is a never sell for me.

 

That's why they make vanilla and chocolate....I already own 5 Glocks.

I get it. I'm just a quality over quantity guy. I never buy guns just because they're cheap. That's just crap to sit around and not get used most likely.

 

I am curious and like to decide for myself what is worthy and what isn't. Back in the 70s and 80s I was a S&W and Colt snob, thought Rugers were trash. Finally bought a few and the Security Six might be my favorite .357. Thought Glocks were trash and finally bought one and over a few years determined they were very good for their intended purpose. I kinda like to make my own judgements.

 

Ok, good luck and you may very well like it. To each their own.

 

Thank you.

 

The G26 is my most useful all around pistol. It's nothing fancy but I would gladly pay the premium over the Ruger. Once you factor in the price of ammo over it's useful life the price difference is negligible.

 

Just my .02 for what its worth. The Glock 26 is one of my most accurate guns in my hands. Others may have different experiences than mine. The accuracy is amazing. Match grade if I do my part. Reliability is great too. As normal Glocks are. New or used I would trust one but only when properly broken in. Like any other gun. You could buy a used one for 300. Or a new one for 550. Or 600. ? They work, its a glock. Choose you sight, or leave the sights stock. Your choice, your done.

 

This flood of budget 9's over the past few years reveals how much margin in built into the price of a Glock.

There is no reason that other companies can't make a gun as good or better than a Glock. And at a lower price point.

Poly pistols cost less than $100 to actually make. So yes, some manufacturers have a substantial mark up. This is often confused with a substantial increase in quality. In some cases there is increased quality, but not in all cases. Is Glock worth $500 (average new price to Joe Citizen)? Well, it's a plastic pistol with cheap plastic sights and great marketing. If that is worth $500 or more to you then that is what you will pay. As I've mentioned in the past, out of all the Glocks I've owned over the last nearly 30 years, only one was purchased new (my 19X). And that was only because a small, local shop had them at below blue label cost. Other than that one I've never paid more than $400 for a well equipped Glock (night sights, extra mags etc).

This should not be construed as I don't like Glock or I don't think they are excellent pistols. Only that I feel most people overpay for their Glocks (and other brands) based on overhype and marketing. Glocks are great pistols, they aren't magic and there are other pistols out there that are just as good and better. Occasionally at a better price.

As far as the S9c, time will tell. Comments like it 'looks cheap/feels cheap' are subjective. In all honestly, compared to higher end pistols from Sig and HK a Glock looks/feels cheap. My opinion. Yet the Glock has proven itself as a good performer (with the occasional crap issues and shoddy QC). The proof is if the pistol in question is reliable with the ammo used and durable. And again, only time will tell. Will a S9c go 100K rounds? Don't know. Will it only go 50K rounds? Don't know. How about 20K rounds? In truth, for most people it really doesn't matter as long as if will function during a defensive situation and for whatever amount of training they put into the pistol.

And that information can only come from those that actually shoot and/or own the pistol and train with it. It will either perform or it won't. Only one way to find that out is through those that shoot/own it and relay the data.

 

Let's say we compare the Ruger Security 9 to the older P 90. No comparing as the P90 is by far a much better made pistol so therefore the G 19 is better in own way.