I think we’re saying the same thing. I don’t recall ever seeing an M&P gun with a removable serialized fire control unit.
Ruger RXM (Glock clone, sort of)
- Thread starter Robster
- Start date
My key take-away "improvements" would be the ability to change grip / frame easily from one format / color / texture / shape to whatever you want, as well as the MOS mount is pre-drilled to accept a wide range of optics. The modular fire control system would make cleaning less complicated, but to be fair, Glocks are easy to disassemble and clean. The fact that mags and a few other parts (including barrel) are interchangeable with Glock should open up a lot of options for shooters. The price seems right.
Local PSA has them in stock and will go look at one today. Has enough intrigue for me to consider purchase. I like the modular fire control concept, much as the mix and match of my Sig P320 allows me to "customize" the frame to my liking. Never been a handgun optic guy, but would like to try it out. None of my current arsenal has a machined slide to accept one, and the RXM would give me the best option for putting anything I like on it without extra machining. Always been a fan of Magpul, and they've done some pretty nice things with this pistol to make it "better". Already have a ton of Glock Pmags too. Stay tuned.
The OZ9 or the Defense Distributed FCU.
Yeah I might be in error. I swore they had a removable chassis or something similar.
dnewton3
Staff member
I will first confess I'm a Glock fan. Not a fan-boi; not so arrogant as to believe there are not other great brands out there. I own a slew of brands, so I'm not against enjoying what the market has to offer. But I am a Glock fan in that I find the original design and manufacturer sufficient for my needs. I was a Glock certified armorer for the 25 years I was LEO, and served as one of our department armorers for that time.
I think several of the brands which are "copy cats" of the Glock do a nice job, and they have found some very minor ways to perhaps improve the concept (different grip angles; modular FCGs; etc). But they do not substantially improve on the concept of a polymer framed, striker fired design in a major and meaningful way. The Glock concept and design was a MAJOR step forward in hand-held firearms; truly shifted the industry in a way not seen before. When they first came out, many industry folks said a "plastic" gun would never last and that Glock was a "fad" that would fade away. Yet here we are 40 years later; Glock is a MAJOR market player, and companies are still copying the original and have not found any truly significant way to improve on the concept. What "improvements" which are available from Sig, S&W, Springfield, etc are just minor tweaks to the Glock formula; they aren't revolutionary. Grip angles and interchangeability are nice, but they don't push the industry in a new, bold direction. They are just "fitment" tweaks for the comfort of the user.
40 year ago, most of the other brands had advertising campaigns which touted why their "metal frames" and "hammer designs" were better than a Glock. And then slowly as the years passed, pretty much every competitor had to admit they needed a polymer framed, striker fired gun in their product line-up to stay relevant. Simply because Glock had taken such a huge bite out of the marketplace.
I'm faithful to the original. The grip angle is pleasing to me. The "ugly gun" looks don't bother me at all. Any criticism heard of a Glock is falling on my deaf ears. It doesn't mean that other brands aren't making good guns of similar design; they certainly are! But they are still just "copy cats" of the OG, IMO.
The best part about the RXM is that it does offer yet another choice to the marketplace. Choices are always good.
I think several of the brands which are "copy cats" of the Glock do a nice job, and they have found some very minor ways to perhaps improve the concept (different grip angles; modular FCGs; etc). But they do not substantially improve on the concept of a polymer framed, striker fired design in a major and meaningful way. The Glock concept and design was a MAJOR step forward in hand-held firearms; truly shifted the industry in a way not seen before. When they first came out, many industry folks said a "plastic" gun would never last and that Glock was a "fad" that would fade away. Yet here we are 40 years later; Glock is a MAJOR market player, and companies are still copying the original and have not found any truly significant way to improve on the concept. What "improvements" which are available from Sig, S&W, Springfield, etc are just minor tweaks to the Glock formula; they aren't revolutionary. Grip angles and interchangeability are nice, but they don't push the industry in a new, bold direction. They are just "fitment" tweaks for the comfort of the user.
40 year ago, most of the other brands had advertising campaigns which touted why their "metal frames" and "hammer designs" were better than a Glock. And then slowly as the years passed, pretty much every competitor had to admit they needed a polymer framed, striker fired gun in their product line-up to stay relevant. Simply because Glock had taken such a huge bite out of the marketplace.
I'm faithful to the original. The grip angle is pleasing to me. The "ugly gun" looks don't bother me at all. Any criticism heard of a Glock is falling on my deaf ears. It doesn't mean that other brands aren't making good guns of similar design; they certainly are! But they are still just "copy cats" of the OG, IMO.
The best part about the RXM is that it does offer yet another choice to the marketplace. Choices are always good.
Last edited:
I agree - those are all improvements- and this gun has them.
I like Glock - I bought my first Glock 12 years ago. I own 7. I carry a 19 as a duty gun.
But the “chassis concept” created by Sig is as much of a game changer as was the original Glock. By serializing the fire control group, you allow the user to change grips - grip length, grip size, to customize the “gun” to their needs. Full size grip length and mags for some purposes, compact grip length for others, and all adjusted to the size of the shooter’s hand.
I have fairly large hands - so the Glock 20 and 21 are fine for me in their stock size. Smaller glock frames, like the 17, or 19, are a piece of cake, but for a person with smaller hands (e.g. one of my daughters), tweaking grip size (circumference) to their hand size is a big advantage.
Glock themselves admitted the need for that level of tailoring with Gen 4 and Gen 5 replaceable backstraps.
The chassis approach makes that tailoring simpler, as well as allowing for the same “gun” to exist in multiple configurations for different purposes - e.g. G17 size for competition/target shooting and a G19 or even G26 size for concealed carry. No need for a completely different “gun”, just an $80 grip module and new magazine.
Brilliant.
Last edited:
I agree with this 100%.
What’s interesting to me is that Ruger built this gun (and the carbine before it) to accept Glock magazines. I think it’s actually a good thing that at least a handful of manufacturers are finally moving toward magazine standardization instead of making you buy a different set of $40 spares for every new pistol you get. Glock magazines are perhaps the best magazine bargain in the industry besides PMAGs for AR’s.
It takes Glock mags because it is literally a Gen3 Glock 19. The patent is expired.
dnewton3
Staff member
The advantage to the modular fire control group (FCG) is apparent, as Astro14 mentions. You have the ability to take one "firearm" (legally defined) and put it into several different offerings (from that same OEM); different frame sizes, colors, etc. This allows a lower cost structure; one "firearm" is owned, and yet several "guns" (frames) can be utilized. These are undeniably cool and allow some very good accommodation to specific interests.
But there's also a downside to that concept as well. I'm not saying it's "bad", but there is a counterpoint worth discussing ...
Having only one "firearm"(FCG) means you only have one useable "gun" at a time. As Astro14 said, he owns several Glocks (as do I; as do many folks). We can store them in different locations for different purposes, etc. They are all 100% functional in their stored "as is" condition. That cannot be achieved with a single FCG firearm. To achieve the same effect, you'll have to own several FCGs to have several simultaneously-functional guns. My point being that the modular FCG concept is nice, but it's limited to a single application at any one time. And there are times (with good reason) to have multiple functional guns stored/available which can be employed in seconds, not having to play the FCG game as if you're trying to assemble some Legos when the manure hits the air mover. For example, I might want to carry a small Glk 26 for a discrete application at noon today, but then also leave a gun at home for my family's protection, and a Glk 43 (my female family members have very small hands) is a better fit for them. Two guns can be at two places at the same time. Owning two Glocks isn't really any more expensive or less of an advantage than owning two RXM (or XDs) at the same time. Modular FCGs are a really cool feature, but they only make a single gun a bit more customizable. The claim that you can own several "guns" with a modular FCG is, IMO, a false claim of advantage.
I hate to use the word "gimmick" as it has some negative connotations. But the modular FCG is just a step above a gimmick. IMO. The modular FCG concept could be applied to a metal-framed gun, but not one OE has really given any serious efforts to that end. The modular FCG could be built into a hammer-fired design, but again the OEs have not put any into mass production. So, the reality is that these modular FCGs are merely a novelty extension of the polymer-framed, striker-fired Glock concept.
After all, who wants to disassemble and reassemble a gun every single time you decide to go from one use to another? And that does not address the need for multiple guns at simultaneous times/locations. You can't split a modular FCG Ruger into two guns for use at the same time. So you have to own two FCGs. Further, I don't want to have to break down and assemble a gun every time my activities change in a moment's notice. It's not like anyone is going to carry one "gun" and also carry three spare frames with them at all times.
Back 40 years ago, Glocks were akin to the Ford Model T concept; you can have any color as long as it's black. But now, Glocks can be had with grip adaptations, and different colors, frame sizes, frame widths, etc. And the aftermarket offers even more customizable options. Owning a late model Glock allows a LOT of flexibility these days.
The modular FCGs are a cool concept. But by the time you purchase several FCGs to have several functional guns, you can just as easily buy several Glocks (or other brands). I don't see that concept at the same earth-shattering level as what the Glock platform introduced decades ago. The claimed "advantage" disappears in reality.
But there's also a downside to that concept as well. I'm not saying it's "bad", but there is a counterpoint worth discussing ...
Having only one "firearm"(FCG) means you only have one useable "gun" at a time. As Astro14 said, he owns several Glocks (as do I; as do many folks). We can store them in different locations for different purposes, etc. They are all 100% functional in their stored "as is" condition. That cannot be achieved with a single FCG firearm. To achieve the same effect, you'll have to own several FCGs to have several simultaneously-functional guns. My point being that the modular FCG concept is nice, but it's limited to a single application at any one time. And there are times (with good reason) to have multiple functional guns stored/available which can be employed in seconds, not having to play the FCG game as if you're trying to assemble some Legos when the manure hits the air mover. For example, I might want to carry a small Glk 26 for a discrete application at noon today, but then also leave a gun at home for my family's protection, and a Glk 43 (my female family members have very small hands) is a better fit for them. Two guns can be at two places at the same time. Owning two Glocks isn't really any more expensive or less of an advantage than owning two RXM (or XDs) at the same time. Modular FCGs are a really cool feature, but they only make a single gun a bit more customizable. The claim that you can own several "guns" with a modular FCG is, IMO, a false claim of advantage.
I hate to use the word "gimmick" as it has some negative connotations. But the modular FCG is just a step above a gimmick. IMO. The modular FCG concept could be applied to a metal-framed gun, but not one OE has really given any serious efforts to that end. The modular FCG could be built into a hammer-fired design, but again the OEs have not put any into mass production. So, the reality is that these modular FCGs are merely a novelty extension of the polymer-framed, striker-fired Glock concept.
After all, who wants to disassemble and reassemble a gun every single time you decide to go from one use to another? And that does not address the need for multiple guns at simultaneous times/locations. You can't split a modular FCG Ruger into two guns for use at the same time. So you have to own two FCGs. Further, I don't want to have to break down and assemble a gun every time my activities change in a moment's notice. It's not like anyone is going to carry one "gun" and also carry three spare frames with them at all times.
Back 40 years ago, Glocks were akin to the Ford Model T concept; you can have any color as long as it's black. But now, Glocks can be had with grip adaptations, and different colors, frame sizes, frame widths, etc. And the aftermarket offers even more customizable options. Owning a late model Glock allows a LOT of flexibility these days.
The modular FCGs are a cool concept. But by the time you purchase several FCGs to have several functional guns, you can just as easily buy several Glocks (or other brands). I don't see that concept at the same earth-shattering level as what the Glock platform introduced decades ago. The claimed "advantage" disappears in reality.
Last edited:
The first major maker to offer a modular gun was Sig with the P250 which was a hammer-fired DAO. It was the parent of the P320 and wasn’t terribly popular. I bought one as they were being clearanced when the P320 entered the market.
dnewton3
Staff member
True. But to my point, how popular are they? Is Sig heavily pushing that product, and more importantly, is the marketplace accepting it? The reality is "no". There is a big difference between what can be done and what should be done. Metal-framed, hammer-fired modular guns are a tiny fraction of the market that few OEs wanted to explore. It's not that they can't be done. It's that they can't be sold in any volume.
I want to be very clear about this. I am NOT saying the RXM (or other modular guns) are worthless or bad. To the contrary, I find them acceptable, desireable alternatives to Glocks. I just prefer to stick with the OG.
I’m not a big “Sig Guy” but I do own two…
That said, one advantage of the P320 in Army service is how easily the armorer can issue a gun fit to purpose and to the individual soldier - grip length, size, etc. Tailoring the gun to the soldier has always made sense to me.
My wife shoots her Beretta 92 very well, it was the duty weapon when she was on active duty, she qualified expert, and carried it when in a combat zone.
But the M9 service pistol is the wrong size for her hands - it was a one size fits all weapon bought in 1986, when very few female soldiers carried a pistol. The P320 is a huge improvement in fit, and therefore, functionality, for today’s force.
Back to the advantage of the chassis system. While you may not be swapping out grip modules every day, the very fact that you CAN swap them out to tailor a gun is a capability that a run of the mill Glock doesn’t have. I buy a gun. Years later, my needs have changed - grip module change to the rescue - and I did not need to buy a different gun, I re-tweaked the one chassis I have.
My Sig P365XL is a perfect example - bought with a factory grip, I changed it out for a Wilson Combat grip ($70) with Tungsten rods ($18) and it is a much improved gun. Fits better. Works better. No stippling job on a Glock 43 can achieve what I did with the P365 - the shape and fit of the grip are different, and I like them better.
That said, one advantage of the P320 in Army service is how easily the armorer can issue a gun fit to purpose and to the individual soldier - grip length, size, etc. Tailoring the gun to the soldier has always made sense to me.
My wife shoots her Beretta 92 very well, it was the duty weapon when she was on active duty, she qualified expert, and carried it when in a combat zone.
But the M9 service pistol is the wrong size for her hands - it was a one size fits all weapon bought in 1986, when very few female soldiers carried a pistol. The P320 is a huge improvement in fit, and therefore, functionality, for today’s force.
Back to the advantage of the chassis system. While you may not be swapping out grip modules every day, the very fact that you CAN swap them out to tailor a gun is a capability that a run of the mill Glock doesn’t have. I buy a gun. Years later, my needs have changed - grip module change to the rescue - and I did not need to buy a different gun, I re-tweaked the one chassis I have.
My Sig P365XL is a perfect example - bought with a factory grip, I changed it out for a Wilson Combat grip ($70) with Tungsten rods ($18) and it is a much improved gun. Fits better. Works better. No stippling job on a Glock 43 can achieve what I did with the P365 - the shape and fit of the grip are different, and I like them better.
Glock definitely has the advantage of name recognition, and they have earned it. They have more aftermarket support than probably any gun out there except maybe the AR, but that also means they command a significantly higher premium on both the new and used market. You can buy a pseudo-Glock with a few spare mags, a good holster, and some practice ammo for the cost of just a bare G19 with plastic sights. There are people to whom that appeals, and the customizable grip frames are just a nice added bonus.
dnewton3
Staff member
I agree with both you and Astro14.
My position is that Glocks are the OG and I prefer them. But other folks may not appreciate them the way I do. I am very much in favor of freedom of choice, and all these "copycat" guns are excellent options if one prefers something other than a Glock, but still wants a "Glock like" gun. I find it somewhat ironically humorous that folks want a polymer-framed, striker-fired gun with adaptable grips and choices of colors, MOS, etc ... but they don't want a Glock. If modularity is the ONLY important thing to you, then the competitors like the RXM are a good choice to consider. Because all the other features are now available in a Glock.
It's a bit ironic that Glock was, at its time of introduction, considered an outsider; a newcomer with questionable pedigree. Now, it's the standard which all others are judged by; it went from being avant-garde to that which other brands now base their designs upon. Modular FCGs are definitely an improvement, but they still don't represent a monumental shift like what Glock presented 40 years ago.
In 2000 I had the honor of partaking in various small arms evaluations. Of these guns, to include the SCAR, and several others of the like. Basically it was a continuation of the OICW program which was somewhat previously mothballed.
We also tested several different shotguns, and semiauto handguns, to include the Glock 17.
Even back in 2000, a replacement for the M9 was being looked at. One of these reasons was the success of police departments with the ugly glock in service.
Modularity has been one of the requirements of military service for quite some time. 100% parts interchangeability at the armorer level. .... Which for whatever reason the Glock does not qualify for. I argue that if the M14 qualifies, then so does a Glock.
In regards to a standard issue sidearm, although a one size fits all deal does not work well with handguns, I dont see a unit armorer, at will, changing grips for a soldier who just does not like how it feels.
Pistols of course in the military are more reserved for Service purpose units, medics, pilots and MPs, standard line units dont get issued pistols. In special purpose units, typically you could carry whatever you wanted as long as it was on the approved list.
Gimmick? I think so. I mean gun makers would not be able to stay in business without the introduction of new stuff.
Will the Ruger be as good as the Glock? Maybe, and since thats what the question EVERYONE is asking themselves in the background, why not just stick with the OG?
I remember when the Glock first hit the market here. Lots of people dismissed or outright ridiculed it. The only things it had going for it were the aggressive pricing and the unusually high capacity. While it’s true the gun was a huge step forward and deserved to succeed on merit alone, there was also a bit of serendipity involved. Glock hit the market at almost exactly the same time many large police departments were abandoning revolvers in favor of automatics, and Gaston’s marketing people were smart enough to offer some really big and influential departments sweetheart deals on truckloads of Glocks in exchange for their old revolvers. That gave them both visibility and legitimacy, and the rest is history.
I remember walking into a gun shop in the mid-90’s and there were probably two dozen S&W model 10’s just hanging on long pegboard hooks. $129, take your pick, all police trades put back on the market. I bought a pencil barrel with Hogue grips and about 80% blueing which has now been appropriated by my wife as “her gun.” I wish I had borrowed some money and walked out with every one they had.
I like my P320 because it's modular, and my G17 because it isn't. Having something in the middle makes me want to buy one someday just to have one.
Similar threads
