When I told Ruger that the SR40’s trigger felt nothing like the go pedal on the Ruger SR9c, and nowhere near as good, the company said the triggers were identical. Same factory. Same parts. So I ascribed the difference to a manufacturing problem. We requested a second SR40. Same issue. Ruger suggested that we’d cleaned the gun incorrectly. So I sent the SR40 to our Gun Doctor for comparison. He confirmed the basics: completely different trigger feel between the two weapons. And then he broke ’em down and dished the dirt . . . .
Here’s the Ruger SR40’s trigger in action:
And here’s the Ruger SR9c’s trigger in action:
The difference is easy to see, even easier to feel. As for Ruger’s claim of parts commonality between the SR9c and SR40 triggers, let’s just say we were misinformed. In fact, I was surprised to discover that the gunmaker told gunreports.com a completely different story when that org made the same observation as our review:
We liked the SR9 overall, but felt the gun was hampered by a balky trigger. The first time we handled the SR9C, we pulled back the slide to make sure it was empty, reset the slide and pulled the trigger. We were impressed and immediately called Ruger to find out if we could retrofit our original SR9 with the same trigger. No dice, they said. The SR9C has a completely different trigger group . . .
OK, so, here’s the good Doctor’s report:
I can confirm the physical differences between the SR9c and the SR40. Here’s what I found when I broke down the SR9c and SR40 and read their respective manuals:
Trigger transfer bar PN#KVS01700 KVS01710 Key number 40
Trigger reset bar PN#VS01750 VS01760 44
Striker PN#KVS01100 VS01101 26
Striker spring PN#VAS01850 VS01860 24
Mag Disconnect Spring PN#KVS05611 VS05601 32
Zooming in, here’s the side-by-side comparison on the trigger bars. Notice the small differences between two: the SRE9c has shorter land on top and a more angled trigger transfer bar.
Here’s the side-by-side on the two guns’ trigger transfer bars. Note the SR9c has a slightly more angled sear. Minor differences otherwise.
Here’s the side-by-side on the SR9c and SR40’s strikers. Note that the externals are all the same but the springs and pocket depths differ. These are the biggest influences on trigger pull and reset. Each striker is set up differently for each gun’s frame size.
The internals of the SR9/40 and SR9c are VERY similar. You can swap most trigger parts—all but the trigger transfer bar PN# KVS01700 and KVS01710. BUT my experiments show that doing so will not create a light ideal trigger.
The SR9c works out smoother due to the geometry being better and altered spring rates/lengths. It is a short barrel defensive handgun that uses a double rate guide rod and other tricks to make it reliable. Start changing parts internally and you’ll mess up the already sensitive timing of the shorter barrel gun. So it is what it is.
There is room to alter things on the full size model. As you’d expect (after your review and gunreports confirmation), Galloway Precision is developing SR9 and SR40 trigger kits. I’d expect to see something from them by Christmas.
No matter what Ruger told you, the SR9c and the SR40 triggers are profoundly different—by design. Ruger chose to lighten the trigger on a sub-compact pistol over its bigger brother. While a lighter trigger does not make a better gun (or a better shooter), it can help someone shoot better earlier, as compared to a new firearm with a heavy pull.
You have the videos reversed
Are you sure that all this could have stemmed from a mix up between TTAG and Ruger? They could have told you the stuff about the SR9c and the SR40 triggers being the same thinking you asked about the SR9 and SR40. That would not make the fact that the trigger isn’t great any different but it might explain the misinformation.
I disagree, look at https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/ruger-american-pistol/
Dead written ϲontent mateгial, Rеaally enjoyed reaⅾing.