New Ruger American Competition

[Whirlwind06]

https://www.shootingillustrated.com/articles/2020/6/3/first-shots-ruger-american-competition-pistol/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=insider&utm_campaign=0620


This one takes it to the next level with competition-level features, like a high-visibility fiber-optic front sight paired with a fully adjustable, serrated rear sight. Also, for those who prefer a mini-red-dot optic on their competitive pistols, the Ruger American Competition comes pre-cut for such an optic. This particular model is cut for a Burris, Sightmark, Vortex or similar-footprint miniature optic.

I'm kind if surprised that they didn't use something similar to the Glock MOS optic cut.

[Zincwarrior]

Any decent reviews on this in regards to accuracy, trigger pull, etc.? Ruger is not especially known for non .22lr competition stuff.

[RevolverRob]

The choice to not cut the gun for the Deltapoint Pro and this:


The barrel is actually rifled at a 1:16-inch rate, rather than the faster 1:10-inch 9 mm rate. Ruger did this to tune the Competition to lighter, competition-style bullet profiles.

Tells me that Ruger didn’t design the gun for competition after all. Probably 50% or more 9mm shooters are running 147-grain bullets. The 150-grain Syntech is proving popular as well. And 1:10 stabilizes all bullet weights well.

Overall it looks to me like Ruger is just trying to capitalize on the looks of current competition guns rather than the performance. It should prove a decent seller to the crowd who would buy a Ruger American. Which is no one serious about shooting that I know.

[Tokarev]

I have an American that I got shortly after the gun was launched a couple years ago. It had some extraction problems early on but his been reliable after an extractor upgrade. Please note that my pistol is NOT this new competition pistol.

Shooting it, the gun really offers nothing that can't be had from "insert another brand here" and Ruger seems to be struggling a bit to find market share in the crowded duty gun market. There's nothing specifically wrong with the American although I find the ergonomics somewhat funky. Internally the gun is probably more mechanically complex that it needs to be. The trigger is okay (about like every other striker gun on the market) but the reset is longer than it should be.

In summary, it is an okay pistol but doesn't offer anything over anything else on the market. It is too heavy, too big, too expensive and too limited in application to be of much interest. By limited application I am referring to the chassis format. The full-size and compact-size guns do not share a common central frame and Ruger does not offer any modular accessories to go with either sized pistol. Why make a chassis at all if you're not going to allow shooters to configure the pistol as they wish?

A swing and a miss from Ruger overall. I doubt the competition model will change any of this.

[Tokarev]

Probably 50% or more 9mm shooters are running 147-grain bullets. The 150-grain Syntech is proving popular as well. And 1:10 stabilizes all bullet weights well.

Their competition 1911 9mm handgun is also 1:16 twist. I assume Doug or one of the Ruger shooters prefers lighter bullets and wanted the slower twist.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[LittleLebowski]

https://ruger.com/products/rugerAmericanPistolCompetition/models.html

55734

[LittleLebowski]

A swing and a miss from Ruger overall. I doubt the competition model will change any of this.

As usual. It’s like they don’t want to try.

[jetfire]

Their competition 1911 9mm handgun is also 1:16 twist. I assume Doug or one of the Ruger shooters prefers lighter bullets and wanted the slower twist.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

Doug primarily shoots Bianchi and Steel Challenge, where faster, lighter bullets make sense. I can't recall anyone at the Cup ever running anything heavier than a 124 in a 9mm if they had a choice.

[Tokarev]

There are a couple things, in my opinion, Ruger could do with the American pretty much immediately to improve the gun.

Change the chassis from machined steel to machined aluminum. This would lighten the gun and also maybe lower the cost. Ruger claims the current gun will last 20,000 rounds. Yeah? Who cares? Lighten it up and test it to 15,000 or 10,000 and call it good.

Standardize the gun around the compact chassis and then sell full-size grip shells and slides. Also sell a subcompact kit. Take some lessons from SIG on this.

Ergonomics could be mildly improved but I think the above would be vast improvements.

Oh. One more thing. The mags rattle when seated in the pistol. I find this somewhat annoying when walking around as I can actually hear the mag rattle.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

As usual. It’s like they don’t want to try.Perfect is the enemy of good enough.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[RevolverRob]

20,000 rounds?

We have shooters here who put twice that through a gun a year. Plus dryfire.

Sounds like rhe Ruger American not only needs a redesign it needs to be tossed in the trashcan.

This is why I haven't taken a single centerfire Ruger semi-auto seriously since they discontinued the P-series. They offer nothing, not even a lower price, that other guns don't offer more of.

[Zincwarrior]

20,000 rounds?

We have shooters here who put twice that through a gun a year. Plus dryfire.

Sounds like rhe Ruger American not only needs a redesign it needs to be tossed in the trashcan.

This is why I haven't taken a single centerfire Ruger semi-auto seriously since they discontinued the P-series. They offer nothing, not even a lower price, that other guns don't offer more of.

Agreed. Respectfully they should go the other way and bulk up the frame weight. With a very nice trigger and accuracy they could have potentially done well. The optic cut leaving the sights to cowitness is a good start and it seems like it has a low bore axis (but that could just be my eyes).

Some tweaks and this could have been a nice Production/SSP and Poor Man's Open (CO) gun.

[Clobbersaurus]

There are a couple things, in my opinion, Ruger could do with the American pretty much immediately to improve the gun.

Change the chassis from machined steel to machined aluminum. This would lighten the gun and also maybe lower the cost. Ruger claims the current gun will last 20,000 rounds. Yeah? Who cares? Lighten it up and test it to 15,000 or 10,000 and call it good.

Standardize the gun around the compact chassis and then sell full-size grip shells and slides. Also sell a subcompact kit. Take some lessons from SIG on this.

Ergonomics could be mildly improved but I think the above would be vast improvements.

Oh. One more thing. The mags rattle when seated in the pistol. I find this somewhat annoying when walking around as I can actually hear the mag rattle.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

20K rounds is a hard “NO” for a competition gun.

[Tokarev]

20K rounds is a hard “NO” for a competition gun.I should have been more specific. The gun is supposed to be built to withstand 20,000 rounds of NATO spec ball.

A competition shooter will reach 20,000 rounds in fairly short order but he's likely shooting 125-ish power factor not 140 PF.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[Clobbersaurus]

I should have been more specific. The gun is supposed to be built to withstand 20,000 rounds of NATO spec ball.

A competition shooter will reach 20,000 rounds in fairly short order but he's likely shooting 125-ish power factor not 140 PF.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

No necessarily true, I shoot factory 124g AE as my competition ammo. Measured 143.6 PF at my last major match.

[Tokarev]

No necessarily true, I shoot factor 124g AE as my competition ammo. Measured 143.6 PF at my last major match.I imagine you're the exception.

Still, as a duty gun, I'd take a slightly lighter one over one that'll last an extra couple of years. And that's assuming a machined aluminum chassis would not be as durable as the current steel chassis. That's just a guess on my part.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[LockedBreech]

A 9mm handgun with modern manufacturing designed in 2020 is only specced to 20,000 rounds while the 1975-designed Beretta 92 is specced to 25-30+ and Glocks can hit 100K easy? What am I missing? Especially on a competition gun, where high round counts practically define the firearm.

[Clobbersaurus]

I imagine you're the exception.

Still, as a duty gun, I'd take a slightly lighter one over one that'll last an extra couple of years. And that's assuming a machined aluminum chassis would not be as durable as the current steel chassis. That's just a guess on my part.

Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

Lots of folks shoot factory ammo in competition and in training. Especially at major matches.

I don’t think I would risk shooting a Ruger American for anything duty related. Not when there are much better, vetted, options for not much more money.

[Tokarev]

Lots of folks shoot factory ammo in competition and in training. Especially at major matches.

I don’t think I would risk shooting a Ruger American for anything duty related. Not when there are much better, vetted, options for not much more money.Guys I used to shoot with either hand loaded or shot stuff loaded by Atlanta Arms and similar. Granted I've been out of that stuff for about tem years.

As I said, the American offers really nothing to the hyper-competitive duty gun market.



Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[Tokarev]

A 9mm handgun with modern manufacturing designed in 2020 is only specced to 20,000 rounds while the 1975-designed Beretta 92 is specced to 25-30+ and Glocks can hit 100K easy? What am I missing? Especially on a competition gun, where high round counts practically define the firearm.

Spec'ed to NATO and/or SAAMI +P.

[Jim Watson]

Guns are durable goods, you have to have something longer, lower, wider, with tail fins and four headlights to sell. Oh, wait, that was 1950s cars; but the same thing applies. Ruger revolvers, .22s, and pocket pistols have a good market, their 1911 mutant seems to be doing OK, but they haven't got much in the full size "modern" automatic field. They are looking for a niche in a crowded business just like everybody else. I don't think they have found it here.


The barrel is actually rifled at a 1:16-inch rate, rather than the faster 1:10-inch 9 mm rate. Ruger did this to tune the Competition to lighter, competition-style bullet profiles.

There is more gunboard and gunzine nonsense on rifling twist than anything else I can think of at the moment.
If Smith and Wesson found they could stabilize a 158 grain bullet with an 18.75" twist 120 years ago, there isn't much "tuning" being done with a 16" twist.
I am not sure why the Germans originated a 10" twist for a 124 grain bullet 117 years ago but it wasn't to "stabilize" it. I suspect they just went with what they were using in 8mm rifles so they didn't have to think about it much.

Yes, if you are a Master class competitor you might eke out that last point to stay in the lead by tinkering with twist rate, but it is way outside what is being done in mass production. Mr Schuemann will cheerfully sell you a 32 twist barrel for a light bullet at high velocity. The late Jerry Keefer was working down in the 12 twist range for low velocity wadcutters. Clark offers a 10 twist Model 52 barrel, I don't know if it is derived from Keefer's work or if it was a parallel development.

[Tokarev]

Guns are durable goods, you have to have something longer, lower, wider, with tail fins and four headlights to sell. Oh, wait, that was 1950s cars; but the same thing applies. Ruger revolvers, .22s, and pocket pistols have a good market, their 1911 mutant seems to be doing OK, but they haven't got much in the full size "modern" automatic field. They are looking for a niche in a crowded business just like everybody else. I don't think they have found it here.



There is more gunboard and gunzine nonsense on rifling twist than anything else I can think of at the moment.
If Smith and Wesson found they could stabilize a 158 grain bullet with an 18.75" twist 120 years ago, there isn't much "tuning" being done with a 16" twist.
I am not sure why the Germans originated a 10" twist for a 124 grain bullet 117 years ago but it wasn't to "stabilize" it. I suspect they just went with what they were using in 8mm rifles so they didn't have to think about it much.

Yes, if you are a Master class competitor you might eke out that last point to stay in the lead by tinkering with twist rate, but it is way outside what is being done in mass production. Mr Schuemann will cheerfully sell you a 32 twist barrel for a light bullet at high velocity. The late Jerry Keefer was working down in the 12 twist range for low velocity wadcutters. Clark offers a 10 twist Model 52 barrel, I don't know if it is derived from Keefer's work or if it was a parallel development.I think, terminally at least, 1x10 has been found to be the better twist rate.

Not that a 1x12 or whatever wouldn't work equally as well but it seems 1x16 can be lacking especially when shooting heavier bullets that may have to pass through some type of barrier.



Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk

[pangloss]

I don't have any hands on experience with current or recent Ruger autoloaders, but from what I could tell, the SR9 borrowed heavily from Glock. It's a puzzle to me why they discontinued it. I took one of Dave Spaulding's pistol classes a couple of years ago, and he was pretty critical of the American. He said that Ruger engineered extra parts into the design that were unnecessary. I wish I remembered the details of the conversation, but then again, there is zero chance of me buying a Ruger American, so what's the point.

[BigT]

As I recall HK advertised the USP to have a 20k service life when they launched them.

That was a minimum not a maximum Based on a thousand rounds a year for a 20 year career. I think I'm remembering right but it was more than 25 years ago.

I don't know if this applies to the American but I wouldn't panic based on just that.

[Dave T]

He said with tongue planted firmly in cheek after viewing the above posted picture: a Glock by any other name would be just as...ugly, and maybe not as good! (lol)

Dave

[Tokarev]

I took one of Dave Spaulding's pistol classes a couple of years ago, and he was pretty critical of the American. He said that Ruger engineered extra parts into the design that were unnecessary.

When I took the armorer course 3+ years ago our instructor stated that Ruger had hired several new engineers as part of the American project. My table mate told me they should have hired one more to unf**k the design the others had come up with.

What's unique about the American is that the sear also serves as the firing pin block. There's a square gate-type deal in the frame that fully blocks the sear from moving (and keeps the striker from going forward) without the trigger being pressed.



As I recall HK advertised the USP to have a 20k service life when they launched them.

That was a minimum not a maximum Based on a thousand rounds a year for a 20 year career. I think I'm remembering right but it was more than 25 years ago.

I don't know if this applies to the American but I wouldn't panic based on just that.

Yep. I'm not saying that the American will self-destruct at round number 20,001.

The gun was built to what Ruger interpreted as the MHS requirements but it was not submitted.

This doesn't make much sense to me. Why spend all the R&D work and then not submit the gun? Maybe the most obvious answer is that Ruger knows the gun wouldn't have passed.


Sent from my SM-A505U using Tapatalk