Re: Ruger SR40c
Had the SR9C come through the store, and I wasn't impressed at all:
BAD THINGS
Sights were surprisingly tall & sharp, not well designed for concealed carry.
Safety was very poor, too far back & VERY stiff. Couldn't move the safety onehanded with a firing grip, and I'm not that wimpy, had to get leverage to snap it into place.
Reversible backstap struck me as pretty much worthless. Seems like Ruger just wanted to have the same "feature" everyone else has, but half a$$ed it. Very small and short, although the difference is fairly substantial between each side.
You may get one with 1 normal mag and 1 extended mag, or one with a pinky extended on the normal mag. I don't understand why people have this retarded desire to squeeze their pinkies onto subcompact guns, there's no reason for that. You can shoot a 3" 1911 with your thumb, index, and middle finger just fine, once you start adding fingers below, especially the pinky, people have a tendency to throw shots off.
Trigger blade safety, I think they're asinine and a lousy design trait, I hate having a segmented trigger, the M&P single trigger surface is much more comfortable & predictable.
Slide serrations weren't very good, shallow and not enough bite in the grip.
GOOD THINGS
The grip frame was well contoured, very high arch above the grip, so slide bite is very unlikely. (i hate slide bite on subcompact guns)
Slide was very well radiused in the front for carry, too bad that concept didn't carry over to the rest of the gun.
Cheap, relative to competition.
Moral of the story: Get a M&P C, and skip the Ruger.