Ruger Max-9

3
1248

https://ruger.com/products/max-9/models.html

Model:3500
Caliber:9mm Luger
Capacity:12+1
Front Sight:Tritium Fiber Optic
Safety Option:Standard Model – With External Manual Safety Lever
MSRP:$499.00

Model:3501
Caliber:9mm Luger
Capacity:10+1
Front Sight:Tritium Fiber Optic
Safety Option:Standard Model – With External Manual Safety Lever
MSRP:$499.00

Model:3503
Caliber:9mm Luger
Capacity:12+1
Front Sight:Tritium Fiber Optic
Safety Option:Pro Model – Without External Manual Safety Lever
MSRP:$499.00

3 COMMENTS

  1. Those little pistols sting a little and limp wristing is also more common with the little polymer framed guns.
    And you simply can’t count on 9 MM to reliably expand from a short barrel in most cases, ammo that does, and that penetrates adequately isn’t cheap.
    Or always easy to find.
    Accuracy and penetration in a reliable platform that you can conceal and handle in any caliber from .22 LR and up.
    What I’d like to see is something styled after the 1903 Colt 1903 pocket hammerless with good sights and a good trigger in .32NAA.

    It would make a nice little trail gun.

  2. If you’re going to have a manual safety, make the lever big enough to wipe off naturally as part of gripping the pistol, big enough to use as a thumbrest to force the frame lower in your hand to get the bore axis lower to reduce muzzle rise. I have no idea what purpose these tiny, sharp-edged, sharp-cornered safety levers are intended to accomplish. Too small to manipulate in a hurry, too sharp to use as a thumbrest, they are a detriment to defensive use of the pistol, rather than a positive attribute.

    I do not know whether a 3.2″ barrel is too short to allow for expanding bullets. I have read that, due to use of very fast-burning propellants, 9mm ammunition loaded with 147gr bullets loses far less velocity in short barrels, and also gains less velocity in long barrels, than ammunition with lighter bullets, so 147gr hollowpoint bullets would be my recommendation for this pistol, assuming the gun functions reliably with them. Even 9mm FMJ killed a great many men, good and bad, over the course of the 20th Century, and is not to be scoffed at.

    I am still at a loss to grasp the design reasoning here. The late Colonel Cooper, peace be upon him, told us long ago that the defensive pistol needs:

    sights you can see
    a trigger you can use
    a dehorn job, if it is to be carried concealed

    The irons look adequate to the purpose. A striker fired trigger is, I suppose, usually better than double action only. The iron sights look rather sharp, as does the safety lever.

    Given Ruger’s track record with semiauto centerfire pistols, I will not be surprised if the design isn’t quietly discontinued in a year or two. Ruger really needs to stick to .22s and revolvers.

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here