LCP vs LCP II

I believe you are correct in how the trigger's differ. I have the original LCP and it has a long, DA only, hammer fired action (bottom left).

I own both. I bought the LCP when it first came out, the LCP II about a year after it came out.

The LCP trigger is very stiff and the sights are miniscule.

The LCP II trigger is MUCH smoother and lighter, the sights are still small but improved and the grip frame was redesigned a bit so it's not quite as narrow in the palm.

The LCP II is, after having owned and shot them both for years, a much better pistol IMHO.

Stay safe.

The LCP II also locks back on an empty mag and is very slightly bigger.

Had a LCP and it was POS------so II by default

That is a nice feature, I forgot about that.

Here are some photos to show the major differences.

The LCP is a DAO design with a loooong trigger pull for each shot. The heavy trigger acts as a bit of a safety I guess. Avg pull weight 5.5 lbs, but long.



The LCP II uses a Glock-like trigger blade safety that allows for a shorter-lighter trigger pull since the gun can’t fire without the blade retracted. Avg pull weight 4.5 lbs but very smooth.



Here is a grip- width comparison. It’s not much, but it does allow for recoil to be easier to deal with shooting the LCP II:




Here are the more useful sights on the LCP II (I painted the front sights orange). Not target grade, but at least you can see them:




And an overall of both:



And the LCP .380’s compared to the original LC9 and Kimber Micro 9:



Both can use the same mags, but only the LCP II will lock back the slide on an empty magazine.

Stay safe.

The LCP II is hammer fired but the hammer is fully (or nearly so) cocked. It’s essentially a single action with no safety. The trigger is much more crisp, like a striker fired gun, but oddly I prefer the original LCP trigger, likely because I like revolvers. Honestly, the LCP II trigger makes me a bit nervous, or rather, having the hammer at full cock makes me nervous!

Had I to do over I would not purchase the original LCP. The trigger is difficult to master, it has what someone else appropriately described as an obnoxious, "shark fin" LCI, the blued finish is susceptible to corrosion when carrying against the body, and I had an instance of the magazine release getting bumped during a stint of pocket carry, causing the mag to disengage enough from the handle enough to render it a single shot.

I'm also not a fan of magazine safeties of any sort in a self-defense auto pistol. In order to dismount it for cleaning, you have to push out a pin through a trap door to free the slide from the frame, which is then lying loose, begging to get lost. I hope Ruger did a much better job on the II version.

It has the same type of takedown pin removal regimen as the original. It can get lost if you’re not careful.

Stay safe.

My LCP has has been great. Bought it used, a jam-o-matic. Did 2 deep cleanings and replaced springs. It runs like a sewing machine!
It is a dedicated SD pistol. I can put 6 shots in a playing card at 15 feet. Trigger means nothing, when you are amped up you just react.

LaneP said:

Had I to do over I would not purchase the original LCP. The trigger is difficult to master, it has what someone else appropriately described as an obnoxious, "shark fin" LCI, the blued finish is susceptible to corrosion when carrying against the body, and I had an instance of the magazine release getting bumped during a stint of pocket carry, causing the mag to disengage enough from the handle enough to render it a single shot.

I'm also not a fan of magazine safeties of any sort in a self-defense auto pistol. In order to dismount it for cleaning, you have to push out a pin through a trap door to free the slide from the frame, which is then lying loose, begging to get lost. I hope Ruger did a much better job on the II version.

Click to expand...

Your description of original LCP makes me think you are describing a very different pistol. It does not have an LCI but a small view port for that purpose. It does not have a magazine safety.

unclenunzie said:

Your description of original LCP makes me think you are describing a very different pistol. It does not have an LCI but a small view port for that purpose. It does not have a magazine safety.

Click to expand...

The LC9 has a top-of-the-slide loaded chamber indicator that sticks up a bit. It’s dumb looking but it serves a purpose...I guess.

You are right, the LCP pistols have a little gap between the slide and chamber that lets you look inside to see if there is a cartridge in the chamber.

Stay safe.

Another vote for the II. I pocket carried for a LONG time with a NAA .22. It was the only thing I found I could carry all day and not feel like I had a rock in there. Then Kel-Tec hit their .32. It was a dream come true. Ended up with 2, and later one in .380. Wife carried one of the .32's a long time. The trigger, which is the same as the original Ruger, was her chief complaint. The trigger was the "safety". When Wife bought a Ruger LCPII due to trying the trigger at a shop it became mine. She is super recoil sensitive and could not shoot the .380. The only down side to me was no more pocket carry with no holster as I had always done. Due have to use a holster now but the trigger is worth this minor deal. Trigger is just like Glock and a few who have copied them as years went by. Ruger later came out with the same pistol in .22. Wife got one of those from me and LOVES that one. I am of course not wild about her using a .22 as carry but, she loves it, will shoot it, so I live with it. They are of course a dream to shoot and for those who have one in .380 would be great for cheap practice.

The lcp ii hammer isn't fully cocked, so not really a single action (IIRC) but mine was light enough and required a small enough amount of travel that i was uncomfortable carrying in the factory nylon pocket holster.

I opted for and would suggest a kydex pocket holster that covers the trigger guard,

Cump said:

The lcp ii hammer isn't fully cocked, so not really a single action (IIRC) but mine was light enough and required a small enough amount of travel that i was uncomfortable carrying in the factory nylon pocket holster.

I opted for and would suggest a kydex pocket holster that covers the trigger guard,

Click to expand...

Anyone who is "ok" with Glock or any of the people who copied their idea should be fine with the LCPII. It's the same kind of trigger set up. They are fine for carry as long as the trigger is covered of course but, the person carrying has to be able to be comfortable with what they carry. Many can't carry a 1911 in the manner it's made to be carried for that reason. The hammer being visible just does a number on them. I have lost track of the people, even shooters, who get really freaked when they see mine since I often use a belt slide. Their mind just can't get past seeing that hammer (shrug). The holster that comes with the LCPII is of course not the best but it is free or was, with the pistol. I opted for another Desantis Nemesis. I had one for my earlier pocket pistols to use if I had to for some reason dress in something like slacks as they did not hide the print like my normal jeans did. I really like them as they stick to the pocket. CC carry now days we have it made compared to what it was like when I got old enough to do so. There is so many great designs now aimed at this market. Used to have very little in the way of choice.

unclenunzie said:

Your description of original LCP makes me think you are describing a very different pistol. It does not have an LCI but a small view port for that purpose. It does not have a magazine safety.

Click to expand...

Dang you are correct, my apologies to owners of the LCP.

I tried both LCP & LCP II in the store before I decided.
The LCP trigger felt much better so that's the way I went.

Cump said:

The lcp ii hammer isn't fully cocked, so not really a single action (IIRC) but mine was light enough and required a small enough amount of travel that i was uncomfortable carrying in the factory nylon pocket holster.

I opted for and would suggest a kydex pocket holster that covers the trigger guard,

Click to expand...

It’s the tiniest fraction from being fully cocked. And I also highly recommend a kydex pocket holster with good retention!

Thanks for the cogent reviews of the differences!

Will the II fit a kydex holster designed for the original LCP?

I think it should be mentioned that there are 2 versions of the LCP..original and then an 'upgraded' one with slightly better sights. Then came the LCPll.
I had a second gen LCP..didn't like it much at all. Reliable but a PITA to shoot and I couldn't hit crap with it. It was also 'pink(strawberry)..but way cheap..$175 new.

Owned and carried this since 2010, yeah trigger isn’t as crisp as my other guns but I’m still accurate with it.

I remember when the II came out and guys freaked out about pocket carrying a gun with a “dangerous “ trigger, created quite a stir on Elsie Pea site, guess Ruger knew what they were doing all a long.

I still might end up with a II just for a BUGView attachment 966993

For odd reasons I owned a Kel-Tec P3AT, an original LCP, and an LCPII all at the same time.

I took all three to the range and alternated shooting magazines through them.

IIRC, the Kel-Tec (which the LCP was blatantly copied from) and the original LCP were very similar.

The LCPII had a far better trigger than either of them, and better sights as well.

I gave my FiL the P3AT, traded the LCP towards something else, and carry the LCPII quite often.

It's a safe pistol... if you keep it in a holster that covers the trigger, AND keep your finger out of the trigger guard before you're ready to shoot.

SteadyD said:

. . . but oddly I prefer the original LCP trigger, likely because I like revolvers.

Click to expand...

Same here. It's just like all the KelTec clones. Seems just right for a close range self defense pocket pistol.