# Anyone know: why no more P93s?



## kansas_plainsman (May 9, 2006)

I had a KP93 in DAO and liked it a great deal. Even so, I traded it because I prefer a DA/SA trigger...

But my question: Why did Ruger drop the 93 from their line-up? I felt the 93's overall length was just about perfect. Good balance, decent sight radius, and for a Ruger, it carried well. If my 93 had been DA/SA I'd still have it today.


----------



## rman (Sep 25, 2006)

I can't think of any reason unless sales weren't good. I agree with all your comments. The P95 is great and I wouldn't trade it, but not everyone likes polymer frames. Just bought a P93D but won't get a chance to shoot it until Wednesday night. Also bought a NIB KP93D but won't pick it up until sometime next week.


----------



## Flashbang (Sep 11, 2006)

The P95 was more cost efficient...simple as that. Unfortunately, it always comes down to the $$.:smt074


----------



## kansas_plainsman (May 9, 2006)

You're suggesting that the 95 was a functional replacement for the 93? I was under the impression that the 93 was shorter.


----------



## rman (Sep 25, 2006)

Essentially it is a replacement for the P93. It is the same length, height and width, but weighs 4 oz less due to the polymer frame. I just shot my P93 for the first time last night and I can't tell any difference in recoil between the 2 in spite of the weight difference. Evidently the polymer cushions the recoil a bit. It's a toss up on which one I like the best. As always with Rugers, both function without a hitch and both are accurate.
Tom


----------

