Why is the LC9 so big?

I never thought I'd hear anyone complain that the LC9 was TOO big...

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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?

Click to expand...

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 ...

After Recall Springfield XDS Trigger Quality..Lack of

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...

Sorry for the post...will re-send..

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.

It had to be big enough for that trigger pull (think its about 12 inches or so).

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.

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.

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.

If the LC9 is a "Behemoth", I wonder what the OP thinks of the Glock 21?

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.

Now I hafta take another comparison picture,,,

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

.

How times have changed!..

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..

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.

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

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.

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.

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.