Ruger LC9
- Thread starter JRP2
- Start date
It's a nice little gun.
I have run around 150 rounds with no problems.
You can check http://elsiepeaforum.com/forum/index.php?action=forum
they have a section on the LC9.
Lateck,
I have run around 150 rounds with no problems.
You can check http://elsiepeaforum.com/forum/index.php?action=forum
they have a section on the LC9.
Lateck,
I bought my Ruger LC9 the 1st week that they were being shipped.
I just happened to be in my LGS when UPS delivered 3 of them.
I looked at it, then bought it.
IMHO Ruger has hit another home run with the LC9.
It's about 25% larger than my LCP.
I can carry it in my front jeans pocket.
It fills the pocket, but is not uncomfortable.
I've put around 300 rounds through it w/o one problem.
I just happened to be in my LGS when UPS delivered 3 of them.
I looked at it, then bought it.
IMHO Ruger has hit another home run with the LC9.
It's about 25% larger than my LCP.
I can carry it in my front jeans pocket.
It fills the pocket, but is not uncomfortable.
I've put around 300 rounds through it w/o one problem.
Last edited:
Sturmgewehre
New member
I posted a review of mine.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbwG5PcGo8
There are a few things I dislike about the pistol.
1) I dislike the magazine safety.
2) I dislike the trigger pull, it's spongy and the trigger travel is too long.
3) I dislike the manual safety, I don't like double action handguns that have them as I feel it's unnecessary.
4) I dislike the internal safety, it adds another unnecessary point of failure to a defensive firearm.
5) I could do without the large billboard loaded chamber indicator on top of the firearm.
6) The method of disassembly appears to be a complete afterthought. I can't believe Ruger engineers purposely designed the pistol this way. I also dislike the fact it requires a special tool to disassemble the gun. The same lock keys used for the internal lock are used to take it down. The plastic sliding take down pin cover really is poorly done.
I wanted to love the LC9 but the more time I spend with it the less I like it. I picked up what will likely become it's replacement today, a Kahr CM9. I'll see how it performs over the next 500 rounds or so.
I posted pics of the LC9 next to the Kahr CM9 in this thread: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=446613
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NVbwG5PcGo8
There are a few things I dislike about the pistol.
1) I dislike the magazine safety.
2) I dislike the trigger pull, it's spongy and the trigger travel is too long.
3) I dislike the manual safety, I don't like double action handguns that have them as I feel it's unnecessary.
4) I dislike the internal safety, it adds another unnecessary point of failure to a defensive firearm.
5) I could do without the large billboard loaded chamber indicator on top of the firearm.
6) The method of disassembly appears to be a complete afterthought. I can't believe Ruger engineers purposely designed the pistol this way. I also dislike the fact it requires a special tool to disassemble the gun. The same lock keys used for the internal lock are used to take it down. The plastic sliding take down pin cover really is poorly done.
I wanted to love the LC9 but the more time I spend with it the less I like it. I picked up what will likely become it's replacement today, a Kahr CM9. I'll see how it performs over the next 500 rounds or so.
I posted pics of the LC9 next to the Kahr CM9 in this thread: http://thefiringline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=446613
Last edited:
ChihuahuaTN
New member
Sturmgewehre, your assessment is on point. Early this week I handling the LC9 at my local gun store, the trigger was horrible...I feel Ruger missed the boat on this gun. Allot of potential clouded with a horrible trigger and to many safeties,
Mike
Mike
BoneDigger
New member
LC9
I picked up a LC9 today. I have not actually taken it to the range so the following is based solely on dry firing and just checking it out at the store and at home.
I compared the LC9 to the PM9 (I have owned a PM9 and it was a very good gun, never any problems). I previously owned a LCP and hated it. Had issues with it not feeding correctly (Ruger fixed it) and I hated the way it shot. So, why did I get an LC9 versus the PM9 this time?
I like the size of the LC9 just slightly better than the PM9. I do not pocket carry so that is not an issue for me. It will be strictly OWB or IWB carry with a quality holster. The weight of the two guns is similar, but I believe the LC9 is slightly heavier. The LC9 is longer in both the barrel and grip, but not by much. The trigger will indeed take some getting accustomed to. The Kahr has a better trigger pull but the one thing I always disliked about the Kahr is the SHAPE of the trigger guard. Not sure why they put that indenture in the bottom but with my larger fingers it makes it a little more difficult to shoot. I think, based on internet reading, that the two guns are both accurate enough. The PM9 sells for $650 locally (I know you can get it for $519 at GT Distributors in Austin, but that's not LOCAL). The Ruger was $360. So, the price was approximately $300 difference between the two. The new CM9 will be closer to the Ruger price point and may be a good alternative.
I personally have no issue with the external safety since it can just be left in the fire position. The trigger pull is definitely long enough not to need the safety. To me it's a non-issue. Some people hate the internal lock and the magazine disconnect. These, again, are not a huge consideration for me.
Once I get the gun to the range I'll give a range report. Just in looking at the LC9 and taking it apart, it seems to be a well designed and constructed gun. If I have any issues I'll get Ruger to fix them then assess my situation at that time. If the gun performs as I anticipate it will, it will become my primary carry weapon.
Todd
I picked up a LC9 today. I have not actually taken it to the range so the following is based solely on dry firing and just checking it out at the store and at home.
I compared the LC9 to the PM9 (I have owned a PM9 and it was a very good gun, never any problems). I previously owned a LCP and hated it. Had issues with it not feeding correctly (Ruger fixed it) and I hated the way it shot. So, why did I get an LC9 versus the PM9 this time?
I like the size of the LC9 just slightly better than the PM9. I do not pocket carry so that is not an issue for me. It will be strictly OWB or IWB carry with a quality holster. The weight of the two guns is similar, but I believe the LC9 is slightly heavier. The LC9 is longer in both the barrel and grip, but not by much. The trigger will indeed take some getting accustomed to. The Kahr has a better trigger pull but the one thing I always disliked about the Kahr is the SHAPE of the trigger guard. Not sure why they put that indenture in the bottom but with my larger fingers it makes it a little more difficult to shoot. I think, based on internet reading, that the two guns are both accurate enough. The PM9 sells for $650 locally (I know you can get it for $519 at GT Distributors in Austin, but that's not LOCAL). The Ruger was $360. So, the price was approximately $300 difference between the two. The new CM9 will be closer to the Ruger price point and may be a good alternative.
I personally have no issue with the external safety since it can just be left in the fire position. The trigger pull is definitely long enough not to need the safety. To me it's a non-issue. Some people hate the internal lock and the magazine disconnect. These, again, are not a huge consideration for me.
Once I get the gun to the range I'll give a range report. Just in looking at the LC9 and taking it apart, it seems to be a well designed and constructed gun. If I have any issues I'll get Ruger to fix them then assess my situation at that time. If the gun performs as I anticipate it will, it will become my primary carry weapon.
Todd
Sturmgewehre
New member
I agree, the safeties add too many unnecessary points of failure. A defensive arm should be simple and uncluttered by unnecessary gizmos.
Sturmgewehre
New member
Thinking you can just leave the safety in the fire position and pretend like it's not there while training is a recipe for disaster. Because it is there you should train to make sure it's disengaged on every presentation. Murphy's Law dictates that since it can be inadvertently engaged it will be when you least expect it.
If it were a plinker/range toy I would agree that you could ignore it. However, if employed as a defensive arm you can't safely assume it won't be engaged when you need it to be disengaged.
If it were a plinker/range toy I would agree that you could ignore it. However, if employed as a defensive arm you can't safely assume it won't be engaged when you need it to be disengaged.
BoneDigger
New member
That's something to think about for sure. The safety is fairly small and not easily activated. I'm not sure that it would ever be an issue, but you are right, if it DID happen it might cause serious issues.
Todd
Todd
jeepman4804
New member
The magazine safety is easily removed... First thing I did to mine once I got it home. Trigger pull is like a double action revolver and takes some getting used to. Mine has been 100 percent reliable so far. It fits nicely in the front pocket of my cargo pants and cargo shorts, but requires a holster on other clothing.
Motownstan
New member
None of these worries with the Kel-Tec PF-9. It's smaller and lighter too. Mine has been perfect.
I suppose the LC-9 is OK for CA & MA, but why would any one in a free state buy one?
@ Sturmgewehre - you're making up issues where they don't exist for me. IMHO.
@ BoneDigger - your correct on every point you make. When you go to the range, it will take a few shots to get used to any guns trigger and then I predict that you'll shoot fine.
As I said, I've shot mine a lot and it's just fine for accuracy.
It's by no means a target gun, nor was it meant to be.
Yesterday the range master saw it and asked to shoot it (this happens a lot when people see it). He put 8 shots in the ten ring @ 25',
I can't do that
Anyway, everyone should buy what you want and what works for you.
But this gun already is a big seller for Ruger and works well for me.
Good shooting.
@ BoneDigger - your correct on every point you make. When you go to the range, it will take a few shots to get used to any guns trigger and then I predict that you'll shoot fine.
As I said, I've shot mine a lot and it's just fine for accuracy.
It's by no means a target gun, nor was it meant to be.
Yesterday the range master saw it and asked to shoot it (this happens a lot when people see it). He put 8 shots in the ten ring @ 25',
I can't do that
Anyway, everyone should buy what you want and what works for you.
But this gun already is a big seller for Ruger and works well for me.
Good shooting.
Last edited:
I haven't had a chance to handle one, in fact, haven't even seen one, so all my comments are general in nature.
I've never understood people's strong dislike of either a loaded chamber indicator or a magazine disconnect. I suppose there is some chance of losing the magazine but the loaded chamber indicator baffles me. Same with the safety. My own Ruger P345 has a safety on the slide, which is flat as it can be and works "the wrong way," so it frankly doesn't get used much. Either way, it isn't in the way and it has never been in the wrong place.
However, your feeling about the manual safety on a double action handgun are shared by others and you probably know that when the German police solicited designs for new standard police handguns, the specification indicated that there be no manual safety. Almost radical for the time, if you ask me. But for a country that had used double action revolvers for a century, it is surprising that all of the DA automatics had thumb safeties when they were introduced until recently. I don't know which was the first that didn't (and I wouldn't be surprised if it were a long time ago). In any case, I don't know if more safeties increase the possibility of failure but I understand what you are saying. There was a fad for a while to pin down the grip safety on Colt Government Models, too, and some similiar copies never had them, like the Star automatics. But what is the internal safety you are referring to?
Your comment about disassembly is also appreciated because I thought the Ruger .22 was the most difficult pistol to take down. Of course a Colt Government model isn't all that simple either.
I've never understood people's strong dislike of either a loaded chamber indicator or a magazine disconnect. I suppose there is some chance of losing the magazine but the loaded chamber indicator baffles me. Same with the safety. My own Ruger P345 has a safety on the slide, which is flat as it can be and works "the wrong way," so it frankly doesn't get used much. Either way, it isn't in the way and it has never been in the wrong place.
However, your feeling about the manual safety on a double action handgun are shared by others and you probably know that when the German police solicited designs for new standard police handguns, the specification indicated that there be no manual safety. Almost radical for the time, if you ask me. But for a country that had used double action revolvers for a century, it is surprising that all of the DA automatics had thumb safeties when they were introduced until recently. I don't know which was the first that didn't (and I wouldn't be surprised if it were a long time ago). In any case, I don't know if more safeties increase the possibility of failure but I understand what you are saying. There was a fad for a while to pin down the grip safety on Colt Government Models, too, and some similiar copies never had them, like the Star automatics. But what is the internal safety you are referring to?
Your comment about disassembly is also appreciated because I thought the Ruger .22 was the most difficult pistol to take down. Of course a Colt Government model isn't all that simple either.
Sturmgewehre
New member
I never said I disliked loaded chamber indicators, I said I could do without the billboard sized device on the LC9.
I put hammers down and release spring tension on strikers when I store firearms in my safe. I also perform function checks on firearms after cleaning them and reassembling them. Having to insert a magazine into a firearm to dry fire it is bass-akwards from a safety standpoint. The device also adds another unnecessary point of failure. While you may not think machines with more parts and added complexity increase the risk of failure, most mechanical engineers would disagree with you. Every thing breaks or fails. Adding do-dads that aren't necessary to a gun increases the chance something will fail. That's why Glock touts its low parts count in its pistols and one of the reasons why it's known for its reliability, among others.
Watching this Part I review video I shot, you'll see the safety I'm talking about. You can fast forward to 6:10 if you don't want to watch the whole thing. I also detail how the firearms is disassembled.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6jZXBWF3Mjs
While I don't think the LC9 is a bad handgun, I do feel it's just "ok". It could be argued you don't need a great trigger or ease of use (firing) since it wasn't designed to be a target gun. But I disagree, if there are other firearms on the market that are more ergonomic and have superior triggers, then the LC9 falls short. In my experience, in the shootability department the LC9 is below "ok". I was hoping for more. As it stands, I feel there are better handguns on the market.
Last edited:
Let's have some more discussion on the slide-mounted safety...
When I brought the gun home yesterday and was showing it to my wife, I suggested she always leave the safety "off" when CC, because in my opinion- after handling and putting a few rounds down the tube at the lgs- the very long trigger pull is sufficient safeguard to prevent an accidental discharge. Because I'm a big guy, with big hands, the safety is also impossible to operate properly with my left thumb if using a single-handed drawing motion from a holstered position.
Now a couple of thoughts.
She is uncomfortable carrying the weapon with a chambered round and off-safe.
Her carry method is a concealment purse with a side pocket.
As she explains it, if she finds herself in a situation where she feels there's the slightest chance of a threat- like walking through a parking lot at night- she will unzip the side pocket, place her hand on the gun simultaneously releasing the safety (and still fully concealed)- and leaving the gun ready to draw and fire if necessary.
Her hand is small enough to actually work the safety properly.
I told her that I did not feel that a "safety-on" carry was optimal since I feel it's a pretty safe gun in DA mode. But given the fact that I should respect her comfort level (and that may change over time), that her hand is small enough to operate the safety lever, and that her carry method is already going to require that a zippered compartment be opened to gain access to the weapon... It doesn't seem so bad- PROVIDED, I told her- that she constantly train and shoot from a safety "on" position so that releasing the safety becomes automatic.
I think sometimes we may form opinions based on what would would be right/wrong for us, without considering physical and other differences that are relevant for another person.
Logical or not, if she feels safer from the possibility of an accidental discharge in her purse by keeping the weapon safe (you and I know it's not going to fire by itself) I guess I should support it.
Yes? No?
When I brought the gun home yesterday and was showing it to my wife, I suggested she always leave the safety "off" when CC, because in my opinion- after handling and putting a few rounds down the tube at the lgs- the very long trigger pull is sufficient safeguard to prevent an accidental discharge. Because I'm a big guy, with big hands, the safety is also impossible to operate properly with my left thumb if using a single-handed drawing motion from a holstered position.
Now a couple of thoughts.
She is uncomfortable carrying the weapon with a chambered round and off-safe.
Her carry method is a concealment purse with a side pocket.
As she explains it, if she finds herself in a situation where she feels there's the slightest chance of a threat- like walking through a parking lot at night- she will unzip the side pocket, place her hand on the gun simultaneously releasing the safety (and still fully concealed)- and leaving the gun ready to draw and fire if necessary.
Her hand is small enough to actually work the safety properly.
I told her that I did not feel that a "safety-on" carry was optimal since I feel it's a pretty safe gun in DA mode. But given the fact that I should respect her comfort level (and that may change over time), that her hand is small enough to operate the safety lever, and that her carry method is already going to require that a zippered compartment be opened to gain access to the weapon... It doesn't seem so bad- PROVIDED, I told her- that she constantly train and shoot from a safety "on" position so that releasing the safety becomes automatic.
I think sometimes we may form opinions based on what would would be right/wrong for us, without considering physical and other differences that are relevant for another person.
Logical or not, if she feels safer from the possibility of an accidental discharge in her purse by keeping the weapon safe (you and I know it's not going to fire by itself) I guess I should support it.
Yes? No?
Thanks for the imput, I am sure I will enjoy my new LC9 but I wanted to see how you all felt about the weapon. Funny thing is I chose this one because of the external safety as I have carried a Glock 23 for years without problem but have always been a little put of by the lack of a safety. Granted the rediculous DA pull of the LC9 is safe enough. As for the loaded Chamber indicator I believe this will actually come in handy as I have caught myself on multiple occasions running around with an empty chamber.
tobnpr I believe supporting her decision to carry with the safety engaged is perfectly reasonable. I do not have a LC9, but I do have an SR9c that I love. It has the loaded chamber indicator, trigger safety, mag safety, and an external safety. Many have argued the redundancy is unnecessary, even dangerous. I like the weapon as is. The external safety is positioned properly to allow me to dis-engage it as I draw the pistol. It is as natural as placing my finger on the outside of the trigger guard until I'm ready to fire.
That an external safety adds another mechanical element to fail is undoubtedly true, though I've never heard of it happening. I carry my 9c in a fanny pack occasionally. I would not carry it this way with a round chambered without an external safety. It works for me.
That an external safety adds another mechanical element to fail is undoubtedly true, though I've never heard of it happening. I carry my 9c in a fanny pack occasionally. I would not carry it this way with a round chambered without an external safety. It works for me.
One possibility for Ruger including a magazine disconnect in this pistol is that they routinely caution against dry firing without the magazine in place, for some reason. In fact, I think they are one of the few that even mentions dry firing in their manuals. But the P345 does not have such a magazine disconnect.
I've heard that argument that safety features make things dangerous before. But I never said that increasing the number of parts and complexity of something makes it more reliable and less prone to breakage. True, no engineer would say that either but for some reason, things do get more complicated nevertheless. There are exceptions, naturally, and the Glock is one of them. But no one ever complains about the redundent safeties on a Colt--except for the new firing pin safety.
I've heard that argument that safety features make things dangerous before. But I never said that increasing the number of parts and complexity of something makes it more reliable and less prone to breakage. True, no engineer would say that either but for some reason, things do get more complicated nevertheless. There are exceptions, naturally, and the Glock is one of them. But no one ever complains about the redundent safeties on a Colt--except for the new firing pin safety.
I've went away from carrying any pistol with an external safety. IMO, it just adds one extra step to perform in a quickly unfolding defensive encounter.
And while releasing the safety can be (supposedly) programmed with much practice, how many casual carriers will put in this amount of time?
Even well practiced shooters fail to release their safeties in some high stress classes and Force-on-Force drills.
And while releasing the safety can be (supposedly) programmed with much practice, how many casual carriers will put in this amount of time?
Even well practiced shooters fail to release their safeties in some high stress classes and Force-on-Force drills.