Ruger P89 vs. P95 vs. Glock 19

[tmlynch]

I used to have a Ruger P89, which shot very well for me. I let it get away, and I am thinking about re-filling my 9mm gap in the pistol portfolio.

Today at the range, I was able to shoot both a Ruger P95 and a Glock 19. I had expected the P95 to give me results like the P89. It did not. The Glock 19 sure did, though. The Glock trigger is a bit spongy, but not horrible. It certainly didn't stop me from shooting an inch tighter groups at 7yds (1.5ish for the Glock; 2.5ish for the Ruger).

So here are my questions for the group:

1. Is it typical for the P89 to shoot tighter groups than a P95?
2. Would a metal frame P94 yield results more like a P89?
3. What do you see as pros and cons in the P89 vs. Glock 19 match up? Since it is more compact, the Glock would be a better carry option (if I get my CHL). My perceptions is that a P89 could be had cheaper; for a bedside gun, the extra size is not an impediment.
4. In this same "neighborhood" (say, <$500 9mm), what other pistols should I think about? M&P 9c felt good in the hand, but I did not get to shoot it.

Additional insights and observations are welcome

Thanks!
Tom Lynch

 

[Crosshair]

P89 - Better car gun because it does not need to be constantly in a holster. use the de-cocker safety and wedge it between the seats if you want or just set it on the passenger seat. I would not be comfortable wedging a Glock of any kind between the seats or having it loaded and not in a holster of some kind. and if you have it in the car and in a holster, you're going to either have to use two hands to draw or somehow fasten down the holster.

P89 - I personally think the SA trigger pull of the Ruger is vastly superior to anything a Glock can do while the DA trigger pull provides a good margin of safety that the Glock also cannot do. For a car gun, the double strike capability is also a major plus. (Again, this is what I "use" the P89 for.)

The P89 and P95 has vastly different grips, though they take the same magazine. I don't know of any inherent accuracy issues between the two, but do know that some people just happen to shoot one better than the other.

The Glock would probably be a better carry option as far as concealability just like my Dad's F-150 is better at towing a trailer than my Ford Contour. Though CCWing a P89 is not impossible, just like how people CCW Full-size 1911's.

Personally, If I'm going to CCW a small gun, it's gonna be a revolver or a derrenger. That's just me.

 

[tmlynch]

Thanks, Crosshair!

 

[Sevens]

I've had a P95, a G19 and I also have a P90 which is the closest thing I can compare to a P89.

The G19 will carry better than any of them because it's slim and trim. The P89 is almost out of the question for concealed carry, it's too big & blocky. The P95 isn't great for carry either... it's stubbier, but fat in the grip. My P95 is even fatter because I have a Hogue slip-on grip on it, an absolute necessity for the ultra-smooth (what were they thinking?) grip on the P95.

Where the P95 shines and can't be beat by ANY pistol (IMO) is the price. I got mine used for $229 (from the largest gun store in my area, at that!) and for that price, I don't need to worry that some puke is going to steal it from my car. Thus, I carry my EDC for daily use but I swap it out for the P95 when I'm going places that I know forbid me from carrying, when the pistol is going to spend more time in the car than on my waist.

With the G19, I was quite surprised at the recoil impulse it delivered. I've been shooting 9mm for some 16 years, I never considered it as any kind of even annoying recoil. The G19 has a little punch to it! The P95 handles it better. And with a flush-fit Mec-Gar mag, the P95 is a 17+1 pistol and gives up nothing but width to the Glock.

So I'm not really comparing the P89 to the G19, I'm substituting the P95. They are much closer in size. The P89 is a tank.

As for the questions:
1) It would be typical in most cases for the P89 to out shoot the P95. More size, more weight, longer barrel and longer sighting plane, all work in the favor of consistency and accuracy -- shooter dependent, of course. But shooter being equal, the P89 should trump it in accuracy. But in practical use at defense distances? Not enough to matter, IMO. (and I shot the G19 quite poorly, if that matters at all...)

2) P94 -- a little. More weight makes for faster shooting with a little less muzzle jump, but knowing what I know about the P95, I'd take it over the P94.

3) I covered this in my paragraph... if it's for home use or range fun, the P89 is the #1 choice. If it's concealed on-body carry, it's the G19. If it's all around use to do all, the P95 would be my choice.

4) Same neighborhood? We are already splitting neighborhoods in my experience. Around here, a new G19 comes for $579 with 3 mags. A new P95 should probably have you out the door with tax and a box of ammo for $350. The P95 is genius when it comes to bang for the buck.

Before I end this huge slew of opinions (keep that in mind, this is merely how I see it!), it may look or sound like I'm dogging the Glock in every direction. Costs more, recoils harder and I can't shoot it as well. But my EDC is actually a Glock 29, so I know recoil and I'm intimately familiar with carrying and shooting a Glock. I'm not a hater, nor am I a fanboy. I bought this and carry it because it works for me.

 

[tmlynch]

Thanks, Sevens. You cover a lot of my bases.

You are correct, the P95 grip is slicker than I expected. I was indoors today. I wonder what it would have been like outside on a 100+ day, or with sweaty palms under duress.

Ruger makes a bold statement in the value pistol market, don't they?

Tom

PS Is your handle a rugby reference?

 

[jhenry]

The P95 is a very good value. I traded mine off, but it was accurate, and dead reliable. Breakdown is more complicated than the Glock, and it is bulkier. I would rate accuracy to be about even. I dislike the DA to SA transition, but it does not bother others. The Ruger's double action can be made lighter and very smooth though.

 

[Sevens]

PS Is your handle a rugby reference?

Definitely not. The sum total of everything I know about rugby is whatever they had in that one episode of "Friends" where Ross gets pretty beat up.

I have to agree with jhenry in the double action-to-single action transition is horrible difficult under stress, but it's no deal breaker for me.

As I said in my post, I bought the P95 because of the price tag -- so that I wouldn't have to worry so much about it getting stolen... trouble I have now is that in a very short time, I've grown to be quite fond of it. I'd be pretty peeved if I lost it, and I'd replace it with the same exact thing!

 

[tmlynch]

Thanks, jhenry!

 

[Glock_19]

The G19 is a great ccw weapon, but if I were you I would also check out the G26. It's even smaller and personally I can shoot tighter groups with it than I can with my G19, both are 100% stock.

 

[tmlynch]

Glock 19:

Thanks for the suggestion. I had not been thinking of the subcompact Glocks. I once shot a friend's G30, and got blood blisters on my pinky from pinching at the magazine finger extension. I suppose the G26 wouldn't have the same jolt, though.

I coulda shot one of those today, as well. Shows how far ahead I am thinking.

Tom

 

[blume357]

Sounds to me from your first post you had decided on the Glock...

so get it. I've only shot a model 19 once and it tended to jam on me from limp wristing... I own 3 P95s and they all will make a 4" group at 10 yards with out using the sights.... so, you can figure I'm a P95 fan... my one 89 is okay but I seldom shoot it....

still again, if you want the Glock then get it.

 

[Leejack]

The guns in question have some major differences that may influence your decision.

They are all good guns. The Glock however, is a striker fire and smaller in size, while the Rugers are DA/SA with exposed hammer and larger in size. I don't think this is exactly an apples and apples comparison. Pick what best serves your needs and you can't go wrong with these guns.

Like blume357, I'm a Ruger fan myself.

Lee

 

[tmlynch]

Leejack, blume357:

Thanks for the replies.

Sounds to me from your first post you had decided on the Glock...

Actually not. I was headed for the P95 (hard to beat the price), and wanted to rent one to get some direct experience before I spent the dough. The accuracy difference between it and the P89 has made me stop to think more about it.

Going Glock is not a slam dunk, either. In the same range session I had a light primer strike that failed to fire with the Glock. This highlights a "feature" of striker fired pistols. Tilt-rack-squeeze is a little more involved than squeeze again, and I won't be the only one who needs to know how the pistol works.

Thanks for all the info, gang!
Tom

 

[Sevens]

Everyone (and their brother) has "expert" advice on this subject... but a big one is that second strike isn't the best method for clearing a problem round in a high-stress situation. If the first hit didn't ignite it, the best option may be to jack that round out and go ahead with the next round and if that's the method you employ, one pistol is no better than the other.

I like the P95 for your purchase, leaving more money to save up for the next purchase. If there isn't likely to be a next purchase in the next year, maybe the Glock is a better way to go.

 

[tmlynch]

Thanks, Sevens.

Tom

 

[Leejack]

Your welcome.

Just to compare the Rugers in question:

P89: alluminum frame, larger in size, no longer in production

P95: polly frame, a little smaller, a little more ergonomic (just my opinion), can get a new one with warranty

If the choice were mine, I'd get a new P95.

Lee

 

[tmlynch]

Thanks, Leejack.

BTW, any bicycles in the basement there at the Alamo?

Tom

 

[Sevens]

can get a new one with warranty

Ruger does a fine job of standing behind all their products, but they don't offer a specific warranty on ANY of them, not even the new ones.

Everything else being equal, warranty does not enter in to the equation.

 

[chris in va]

I can only add one thing to this conversation, FWIW.

I'm used to shooting my CZ, Kahr and Sig 220. Rented a Ruger a long time ago when looking for my first pistola, wasn't terribly impressed with the massive slide size and lack of ergos so I ended up with my CZ.

Couple months ago I had the opportunity to try a guy's Glock 19 with the 3.5# disconnector. Having owned and sold an XD, I thought this would be just another mushy striker trigger and I halfheartedly aimed at this steel spinner target about 25 yards away.

Long story short, I kept hitting this 4" circle through the whole mag. The owner just looked at me afterward and said, "how did you do that?". Seems he was shooting off the bench supported and couldn't get the hang of it, but for some reason I was able to nail that thing without thinking about it. The disconnector made all the difference for me. I was impressed.

 

[tmlynch]

Thanks, Chris.

I was surprised at how accurately I shot the Glock. That is what put it into the conversation.

Tom