Why is the LC9 so big?


PDA






Skribs
February 26, 2014, 08:56 PM
When I first heard about the LC9, I assumed it would be bigger than the LCP. I thought it would a tiny bit bigger, anyway. I didn't anticipate it being the behemoth that it is, at least in comparison to the LCP. To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, let's look at some other handguns...

The Kel-Tec P3-AT is 0.1" longer, 0.02" wider, the same height, and 1.7 oz heavier than the P-32.

The Sig P938 is 0.4" longer, same width and height, and 0.8 oz heavier than the Sig P238.

The Ruger LC9 is 0.84" longer, 0.9" taller, 0.08" wider, and 7.7 oz heavier than the LCP.

The LCP is one of the smallest .380 autos on the market. However, look at the LC9 compared to other pocket 9s:
0.1" longer, 0.6" taller, and 0.2" thinner than the Sig P938
0.8" longer and 0.8" taller than Rorbaugh R9 Stealth
0.15" longer, 0.2" taller, and 0.02" wider than Kel-Tec PF9
0.4" longer, 0.2" taller, and 0.2" thinner than Kahr

I understand that it needs to be a little bit longer and heftier to handle the 9mm round instead of the .380 ACP. However, does it really need to be as big as it is?

If you enjoyed reading about "Why is the LC9 so big?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!
primalmu
February 26, 2014, 09:37 PM
I never thought I'd hear anyone complain that the LC9 was TOO big...

velojym
February 26, 2014, 09:48 PM
Uhm... I carried one for about a year, and it seemed just about right for the caliber. Disappeared in an IWB holster, and was *just* big enough that I could get a decent grip on it. I'd say they did a fine job of it. Heck, I'd still have it except that I got the hots for the XDS.

pretzelxx
February 26, 2014, 09:56 PM
Wife has one, doesn't carry it yet, but she works at a school, preschool at that. I love the tiny little thing, fits snug in my hands and isn't too big for hers, she just hates the da pull cause she seems to think it makes her a bad shot. A 6 in group at 15 yds or so isn't the worst I've seen. She's shot about 300 rounds in her life.

But, I suppose when you compare it, on paper its pretty big.

crazysccrmd
February 26, 2014, 10:46 PM
The LC9 has those dimensions because they are almost the same as the Keltec PF9 they blatantly ripped off the design from. Kinda like how the LCP is almost the exact same dimensions as the P3AT...strange.

Skribs
February 27, 2014, 01:57 AM
Ruger may have ripped off Kel-Tec on the LCP, but IMO they made it tougher . I've had LGS gunsmiths tell me they see more Rugers go out the door and more Kel-Tecs come in for repairs. Maybe Ruger should make a LC32 so I don't need to get a Kel-Tec...

Regarding (LC9 vs. PF9) vs (LCP vs P-3AT), I think the LCP is closer in size and design to the P-3AT than the LC9 is to the PF9.

bluekouki86
February 27, 2014, 02:28 AM
I don't feels its big for what it is. My wife has one that fits her perfectly.

The real question is why is the trigger so terrible.

Old Dog
February 27, 2014, 04:15 AM
"The behemoth that it is ..." Wow. You really think it's too big for what it is? It's a freakin' tiny pistol.
However, does it really need to be as big as it is? Apparently, you don't remember the "old days" when the smallest 9mm pistol around was ... something like a S&W 3913. Anyway, any smaller, in polymer frame, it'd be ridiculous to shoot. As it is, this pistol (and I have a couple of 'em) is too small for me ... If I want to downsize in 9mm, I'll segue from a SIG 226 to a SIG 228 ...

jolly roger
February 27, 2014, 04:23 AM
Almost bought a Springfield XDS 45 before the recall. Seemed to me at the time the trigger was pretty good. Then the recall came. Today I picked up one that has been "fixed" with the added pin. The trigger on it was the most atrocious thing I have felt. Anyone else discovered this after the recall? Think I might pass on this one...

jolly roger
February 27, 2014, 04:28 AM
Sorry for the post...will re-send..

heeler
February 27, 2014, 09:34 AM
I consider my PM9 about as small and light as a 9mm should realistically be.
Mine can be snappy with plus P ammo but still controllable.
Any lighter and it would be a handful with me.
I think Ruger intentionally built it slightly bigger and a bit heavier for general ergonomics and shootability for the over all public.
If pocket carrying is what one wants it can work but the overall length just like a lot of J frame style revolvers starts pushing the limits on a lot of pants pocket depths.
I have found the six inch lenth to be the cutoff point for pocket carry.
If it didn't have such a bad trigger and that over sized chamber indicator I would'nt mind owning one.

JWH321
February 27, 2014, 09:50 AM
It had to be big enough for that trigger pull (think its about 12 inches or so).:uhoh:

Captains1911
February 27, 2014, 10:05 AM
It's actually on the small end for guns in its "class." Comparing it to a true pocket-sized .380 is not very practical. I have a hard enough time holding onto the LC9 as it is, if it were any smaller or lighter I would not want anything to do with it.

Wishoot
February 27, 2014, 11:04 AM
Perhaps you meant to ask "Why is it bigger than it needs to be"?

My thought is that it's plenty small for a single stack 9. But adding the safety's and LCI add bulk and weight. Not much, but some.

Frankly, given the heavy trigger pull, the safety is unnecessary IMO. The LCI isn't necessary because every gun should be treated as if it were loaded at all times.

Getting rid of these features may reduce a bit of bulk and weight.

Mitlov
February 27, 2014, 02:13 PM
I think it was designed for people who may have thought that guns like the Sig P938 didn't have enough grip or enough recoil-absorbing mass for their personal tastes, but still wanted a relatively small conceal-carry gun. Someone who might only be able to get one-and-a-half fingers on a Sig 938 might be able to get a solid two-finger grip on an LC9; that sort of thing. Different strokes for different folks.

burk
February 27, 2014, 02:19 PM
If the LC9 is a "Behemoth", I wonder what the OP thinks of the Glock 21?:D

I find it the perfect size for a casual carry gun. If I'm carrying all day I holster a 1911 Commander. Most of the smaller guns are hard to get a good grip on, and consequently hard to shoot as comfortably or effectively. I get more complaints about both the LC9 and the LCP being to small (especially the LCP) than the other way around.

aarondhgraham
February 27, 2014, 04:16 PM
Now I hafta take another comparison picture.

I've only had mine for a short while,,,
And I've only been to the range with it twice,,,
But it doesn't seem to be any bigger than my Bersa Thunder 380.

I'll take a comparison picture tonight,,,
It didn't impress me as being a big gun at all.

Aarond

.

gbeecher
February 27, 2014, 04:37 PM
Big?! I have a Mosin-Nagant rifle - try THAT sometime! (actually I find it comfortable to shoot) The Colt 'Pocket' Hammerless of 1903 is 6.75 inches long and weighs 24 ounces. My Hi-Point C9 (C for 'compact') is 6.75 inches long, 5 inches high, 1.5 inches width and weighs 29 ounces. To me, it is relatively compact. The laws of physics determine that there is no free lunch however. Watch people shoot the Diamondback DB9 sometime.. ;)

C0untZer0
February 27, 2014, 05:42 PM
I went with the R9 because I wanted the smallest 9mm I could get. I think it has the smallest over all foot print of any pocket nine. The Boberg XR9-S (Shorty) is slightly shorter as far as OAL, but it is also a taller pistol and weighs more - 17.5 oz

I wanted a pocket nine, so the LC9 didn't really appeal to me, and when I got to try the trigger, that ended any further consideration of getting one.

C0untZer0
February 27, 2014, 05:50 PM
The LC9 (listed last) is larger than all these other pistols:

Rohrbaugh R9
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 2.9 in
Length: 5.2 in
Height: 3.7 in
Slide Width: .82 in
Width at thickest part of pistol: .95 in
Weight: 13.5 oz, magazine 1.6 oz
Capacity: 6+1 Rounds

Boberg XR9-S (Shorty)
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.35 in
Length: 5.1 in
Height: 4.2 in
Width: .96 in
Weight: 17.5 oz
Capacity: 7+1 Rounds

Kahr MK9
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.0 in
Length: 5.3 in
Height: 4.0 in
Slide Width: .90 in
Width at slide stop: 1.0 in
Weight: Pistol 22.1 oz, Magazine 1.9 oz
Capacity: 6+1

Kahr PM9 / CM9
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.1 in
Length: 5.42 in
Height: 4.0 in
Slide Width: .90 in
Width at slide stop: 1.0 in
Weight: Pistol 14 oz, Magazine 1.9 oz
Capacity: 6+1

Kimber Solo
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 2.7 in
Length: 5.5 in
Height: 3.9 in
Width: 1.2 in
Weight: 17 oz
Capacity: 6+1 Rounds

SIG SAUER P290
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 2.9 in
Length: 5.5 in
Height: 3.9 in
Width: 0.9 in - 1.1" w/slide catch (roughly the same width as MK9, Kahr lists the width of the slide only)
Weight: 20.5 oz w/magazine
Capacity: 6+1

Diamondback DB9
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.0 in
Length: 5.60 in
Height: 4.0 in
Width: 0.80 in
Weight: 11 oz
Capacity: 6+1 Rounds

Kel Tec PF-11
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.1 in
Length: 5.6 in
Height: 4.3 in
Width: 1.0 in
Weight: 14 oz
Capacity: 10+1 Rounds

Beretta Nano
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.07 in
Length: 5.63 in
Height: 4.17 in
Width: .90 in
Weight: 17.67 oz
Capacity: 6+1

SCCY CPX-2
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.1 in
Length: 5.7 in
Height: 4.0 in (without mag extensions)
Width: 1.0 in
Weight: 15.0 oz
Capacity: 10+1 Rounds

Kel Tec PF-9
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.1 in
Length: 5.87 in
Height: 4.3 in
Width: .88 in
Weight: 12.7 oz
Capacity: 7+1 Rounds

SIG SAUER P938
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.0 in
Length: 5.9 in
Height: 3.9 in (not counting magazine w/extension)
Width: 1.1 in
Weight: 16.0 oz
Capacity: 6+1 Rounds

Ruger LC9
Caliber: 9mm
Barrel: 3.12 in
Length: 6.0 in
Height: 4.5 in
Slide Width: .90in
Weight: 17.10 oz
Capacity: 7+1

Mitlov
February 27, 2014, 07:32 PM
It's bigger than a dozen other 9mm models and smaller than several dozen 9mm models. Not everyone can be "the smallest," particularly when some buyers find "the smallest" too small. The market needs a variety of sizes to meet the preferences of a variety of customers, and the LC9 is part of that variety.

Skribs
February 27, 2014, 07:42 PM
My point about the size is this:
Compare LCP to other .380s, and only one or two are smaller. Compare LC9 to other pocket 9s, and it's thinner, but otherwise bigger.
Or, compare other pocket 380s to their 9 counterpart, and they're similar. The LC9 is much bigger than the LCP.

So no matter how you compare the relationships, the LC9 should be closer in size to the LCP IMHO.

primalmu
February 27, 2014, 08:08 PM
The LCP is not an LC9, so it is pointless to compare the two. As the saying goes, opinions are like <deleted>, everyone has one and they all stink. Does it NEED to be as big as it is? Maybe not. Do larger pistols need to be bigger than the LC9? Again, no. It is what it is (and personally, I think its the perfect size for a 9mm carry piece). This thread is nothing more than a "boo hoo, I don't like the LC9" thread as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I'll start a thread asking why the Rohrbaugh R9 is so dang small, or why its so dang ugly, or why its so dang expensive (no way I'd pay over a grand for a freakin' pocket 9).

EDIT: By the way, this is the first time I have EVER been censored for censoring my own post. Apparently asterisks are considered vulgar now.

Skribs
February 27, 2014, 08:49 PM
Saying the LCP is not like the LC9 is like saying the SR9 is not the SR45. I realize there's going to be some difference, but the name LC9 on a ruger pocket auto following the LCP suggests it's in the same lineup as the LCP.

velojym
February 27, 2014, 08:58 PM
Jolly, some have claimed the XDS trigger was improved by the fix, but I haven't really noticed the difference since I got mine back. I like the eminently concealable piece that'll hold (with the extended mag) 7+1 full .45acp rounds, and on the 20 yd plates, I could smack 'em down with authority all day. I don't guess I'd call it a match trigger, but it suits me just fine.

Mitlov
February 27, 2014, 09:15 PM
Luckily, if you want a pocket 9mm that's smaller than the Ruger LC9, there's at least a dozen options for you on the market (listed above). Happy shopping!

Captains1911
February 27, 2014, 10:17 PM
Since when did the LC9 become a "pocket gun?" I don't think that was the design intent and therefore it makes no sense to compare it to the LCP.

Walt Sherrill
February 28, 2014, 10:41 AM
The LC9 is larger in some ways, but it also holds 1 more round than a number of the "smaller" guns.

You seem to be straining at a gnat...

Having owned and shot a number of these guns, and having pocket-carried a couple of them, I would suggest that the dimensional differences between them are essentially trivial (except the P11, which, to my thinking is NOT a pocket gun).

Pocket carry is a type of carry that seems better as an IDEA than as something that really works all that well... (Getting a gun out of an IWB holster can be a challenge when sitting or in a car, but not nearly as much of a challenge as doing the same with a gun you have in your pants pocket. (Coat pockets aren't as much an issue, but in the summer....)

.

ddc
March 2, 2014, 12:40 AM
If the LC9 was based upon the PF9 then the dimensional differences don't have to be the same but they are close.
However CountZero's data indicates a significant weight difference: PF9 12.7 oz vs LC9 17.01 oz.
Why would it be so much heavier? That's a 16% increase?

primalmu
March 2, 2014, 01:10 AM
How do you get 16%? I calculated 34%!

The Lone Haranguer
March 2, 2014, 05:49 AM
If the LC9 were made as small as the LCP, it would hurt on both ends. The Kahr PM9 I had flayed the skin off my trigger finger.

What they need to do with the LC9 is give it the new style, shorter stroke LCP trigger. :)

Walt Sherrill
March 2, 2014, 06:56 AM
If the LC9 was based upon the PF9 then the dimensional differences don't have to be the same but they are close.
However CountZero's data indicates a significant weight difference: PF9 12.7 oz vs LC9 17.01 oz.
Why would it be so much heavier?

The weight of those two guns is a LOT different. I can't tell, from looking at the manufacturer's data, whether the LC9 weight includes a loaded mag, and assume it doesn't. If they were both "loaded" weights, that would make them closer. The Kel-Tec data shows both empty and loaded.

If the weight is THAT different (and not saying it isn't), that may explain why some folks feel the LC9 is softer shooting than the PF-9...

I just looked at the Kahr CM9 on the Kahr website, and it's 2 ounces heavier than the Kel-Tec, empty, but 1 ounce lighter than the LC9, empty, and to me, it's the softest shooting (least noticeable recoil) of the three.

Captains1911
March 2, 2014, 07:28 PM
The weight of those two guns is a LOT different. I can't tell, from looking at the manufacturer's data, whether the LC9 weight includes a loaded mag, and assume it doesn't. If they were both "loaded" weights, that would make them closer. The Kel-Tec data shows both empty and loaded.

If the weight is THAT different (and not saying it isn't), that may explain why some folks feel the LC9 is softer shooting than the PF-9...

I just looked at the Kahr CM9 on the Kahr website, and it's 2 ounces heavier than the Kel-Tec, empty, but 1 ounce lighter than the LC9, empty, and to me, it's the softest shooting (least noticeable recoil) of the three.
Weight specs are always for unloaded gun unless specifically noted otherwise.

HexHead
March 2, 2014, 07:42 PM
The real question is why is the trigger so terrible.

It's a a Ruger. When have they ever had a nice trigger?

skiking
March 3, 2014, 12:33 AM
If the LC9 was similar size to the LCP I wouldn't ever consider buying one, it would be too small. I played with a friends LC9 last week and it is a small gun. I like how small it is and how easy it is to conceal, but don't like how small it feels in my hand.

Walt Sherrill
March 3, 2014, 01:12 AM
If the LC9 was similar size to the LCP I wouldn't ever consider buying one, it would be too small. I played with a friends LC9 last week and it is a small gun. I like how small it is and how easy it is to conceal, but don't like how small it feels in my hand.

I've seen a couple of reviews of the new LC380, which is basically the LC9 with the (.380) LCP top-end. That slightly larger and heavier frame apparently makes the .380 round much easier to shoot well. It may be that the LC9 frame is about as small as one needs to go.

(I know there are smaller guns, and I've shot some of them -- I haven't shot all of them well, and certainly didn't ENJOY shooting most of them. I'm giving serious thought to an LC380...)

ddc
March 4, 2014, 12:15 AM
How do you get 16%? I calculated 34%!

Because I have a cheap calculator that isn't smart enough to double check that I entered the correct data. LOL...

You are correct sir. Thanks!

Girodin
March 4, 2014, 02:38 AM
IMHO small reaches a point of not only diminishing returns but of actually being an impediment to shooting and running the gun well. The lc9, P/CW/k 9, walthers pps, S&W shield, are about as small as you get without crossing the line of the small size being an impediment. A cw9 or PM 9 is as small as I'd ever personally care to go and is more of a BUG or deep cover gun than a true primary carry gun.

Being really small and chambered in 9x19 is a neat engineering feat. However, small is not always the sumnum bonum in a carry gun. A gun the size of a pps or shield really is not hard to hide with a proper carry set up and shoots worlds better than an R9 for example. A little time spent shooting for a shot timer, jettisoning the "combat effective/accurate" excuse for misses, and some good drills is pretty enlightening when it comes to the smallest of guns.

benzy2
March 4, 2014, 10:19 AM
My issue is that I've never seen a proper way to pocket carry, at any size. I don't wear carpenter jeans or other excessively baggy pants. Neither a j frame nor an LCP were usable in a pocket for me. If it did fit in the pocket, it by Ohio law must be in a holster. I agree with that as I wouldn't feel safe with an exposed trigger (long DAO pull or not). In a pocket holster, it would fit, but I couldn't draw to save my life. I also had difficulty fitting everything else (phone, keys, small pocket knife, change, etc) in the other pocket. When timed, I was far faster drawing from an IWB holster.

With that in mind, the absolute smallest pistol simply offered minimal benefit relative to its drawbacks. Having something a little heftier and larger made shooting easier and didnt change the ability to carry IWB by any noticeable amount. While a pistol carried is better than one left at home, I don't see a slightly larger option being realistically harder to carry and I do see it being far easier to shoot. 9x19 isn't pleasant to shoot in most micro pistols. I wouldn't be interested in a pistol that was significantly smaller than the LC9.

heeler
March 4, 2014, 12:21 PM
benzy if you can't draw a gun like my LCP from your front pocket you are using the wrong holster or your pants are way to tight.
A a J frame because of it's better grip is even easier.
My problem with pocket carrying J frames is the over all length that causes them to peek out of my pocket.
As far as draw timing I think that is over rated more times that not.

benzy2
March 4, 2014, 01:00 PM
I've tried different pocket holsters and none work to my satisfaction. My pants are far from tight pants but they aren't baggy enough for comfortable pocket carry. I blame a slim waist, muscular thighs, and a desire to not wear baggy pant. IWB works wonderfully and will be my option.

I've never been a fan of the concept of dressing around the gun. While I'll make some changes to carry, I'm not willing to change enough to be comfortable with a pocket pistol. I'll stick with IWB and all the benefits it allows, including pistols that are much better sized to handle hot defense loads rather than dress around a .380 pistol.

jon_in_wv
March 4, 2014, 10:53 PM
It seems the OPs logic is that for some reason the LC9 was ordained by the gun gods to be the smallest 9mm ever made yet somehow it failed. I'm not sure where that logic is coming from nor does smallest=best. If you want the smallest, its your money go buy it. I don't know how whining about the size of the LC9 benefits anyone in any way.

Lucky Derby
March 5, 2014, 05:29 AM
I remember when Glock introduced the G26/27. Everyone thought they were tiny for a 9mm, much less a .40
I used to have a Colt Mustang PlusII. As far as I know the slightly smaller Mustang was the smallest .380 around at the time.
My how times have changed.

SIGLBER
March 5, 2014, 01:33 PM
Just looking at te stats can be a bit deceptive. The LC9 has sort of a rounded, melted as some call it design. Some of the other guns mentioned although shorter or whatever are blockier. I find my LC9 quite easly and comfortable to conceal and carry. But variety is a god thing. if the LC9 doesn't work for you their are lots of other options out there to choose from. One size does not fit all.

jon_in_wv
March 9, 2014, 11:26 PM
It seems the OPs logic is that for some reason the LC9 was ordained by the gun gods to be the smallest 9mm ever made yet somehow it failed. I'm not sure where that logic is coming from nor does smallest=best. If you want the smallest, its your money go buy it. I don't know how whining about the size of the LC9 benefits anyone in any way.
__________________

Let me respond to my own statement by stating I should rephrase "whining" to mean "complaining". I don't think the OP was whining I'm simply saying that arguing whether or not the LC9 is the "smallest" seems a little off when I don't think Ruger ever made the claim that it was the smallest nor is the smallest 9mm what everyone is looking for. Personally I find my BG380 to be the largest pistol I would care to pocket carry. Even if a 9mm was that small it would be much harder to shoot well from such a small package. On the belt the BG just feels unnecessarily small and a larger weapon of a more substantial caliber is more appropriate. The LC9 and similar pistols are really good in that role. As a IWB carry weapon its a pretty useful size. Small enough to conceal easily yet large to shoot well. I assume they sell a ton of them so they must be doing something right.

aarondhgraham
March 10, 2014, 12:21 PM
Imagine my surprise when I laid the pistols side by side,,,
The LC9 is smaller than my beloved Bersa.

http://www.aarondgraham.com/pics/140310-LC9_Bersa380.jpg

It's still not what I would call a pocket pistol,,,
But it is smaller than some think.

Aarond

.

jimbo555
March 10, 2014, 02:11 PM
With the flat mag base installed the lc9 is less than 4.5 inches high and mine measures slightly less than the 6.0 inches long. The lc9 is smaller than the shield and walther pps, also 7 round magazine pistols.

If you enjoyed reading about "Why is the LC9 so big?" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!