Thoughts on LC9

Just saw on Youtube that Ruger has come out with the LC9 S a striker fired LC9 that doesn't have the long trigger pull or the hated loaded chamber indicator.

My wife and I rented the LC9s on Friday and liked it. While we shot tighter groups with the M&P Shield 9mm, the Ruger felt better in the hand and conceals easier. Also fits nicely in the pocket with a Blackhawk size 4 holster. Upgrades I would get are better sights like the Truglo ones, a steel guide rod instead of the plastic one, and perhaps a laser like the Viridian Green instant on center laser.

I would want to see if they upgraded their quality control before I jumped on a new gun. I had 2 LC9 pistols. Both had quality issues -- broken parts in both of them -- firing pin retainer, firing pin, safety lever, etc. These were not parts that were inconsequential. While Ruger fixed everything quickly, the guns had to make repeated three week trips to the factory to get things done. After the last trip, and after the final firing pin retainer bent, I decided that the time had come. Ruger Customer Service was above reproach, but their initial manufacturing processes seemed to be not well sorted. In their defense, the LC9 was among the first products from their Arizona plant. Perhaps they needed time to get folks trained.

I would also think that the value of the older hammer fired guns may take a heavy hit as people grab up the revised model.

As one who owns both, the S&W Shield is a much softer shooting gun, if that's important to you.

I never saw a problem with the original LC9 trigger, but then I grew up on DA revolvers.

The LC9 trigger is longer and heavier than some, but I think it's smooth / predictable / repeatable- I can always tell what's going on with it.

basicblur said it well,,,

The LC9 trigger is longer and heavier than some, but I think it's smooth / predictable / repeatable- I can always tell what's going on with it.

Click to expand...

This is my experience as well,,,
Smooth / predictable / repeatable.

The LC9 trigger is not "terrible",,,
It's just a long pull you need to practice with.

The LC9s might have a shorter trigger,,,
But I wonder if it has the three attributes basicblur outlined.

Aarond

.

We have an LC9 and I'm quite fond of it: reliable, accurate and pleasant to shoot. Having cut my shooting teeth on revolvers beginning in the late '60s, its revolver like trigger is no big deal especially since ours is so consistently smooth. However, my wife is a relatively new shooter and she does much better with striker fired guns. So tomorrow we'll be buying her LC9s. If you buy one, get the one you like best.

JWH, the firing pin for the striker version is MUCH thicker than the LC9. Hopefully any issues the LC9 had [parts breakage] were addressed and fixed before the release of the LC9s.

My wife shot a Friend's LC380 and liked it so much she bought one for herself. Easy to rack and shoot and the trigger is butter smooth. I liked it so much I just ordered the LC9 for myself. I like the long trigger pull and for me it is just right for a carry gun.

I was really stoked when I got mine, in preparation for a CCW license. It fit so well in a pocket and was very concealable. Then I shot it...

The trigger pull is super long, and it's hard to hit a target with it. Also, the magazine kept dropping out during firing causing the gun to fail completely due to the magazine safety.

I subsequently read that the magazine drop issue is a common problem and that one way to eliviate it was to use the flat base plate on the magazine instead of the finger rest.

Though dissapointed I took it to my CCW class, and was pleasantly surprised. Though hitting a fine target is very hard to do, I kept all my shots on a torso target shooting quickly, even going out to twenty-five yards. Basically, the accuracy potential is perfectly acceptable, especially when you learn to stage the trigger.

The magazine kept dropping out during my class, but my pinkie finger retained it and kept the gun rolling. After the class I ground off the top off of the magazine release button and now I have no magazine drops. Basically, I think the button sits so proud of the frame the meat of the shooters hand would activate it in recoil.

In conclusion, I'm not completely sold on the LC9 at this point, but I'm looking at it positively. If the county ever decides to process my CCW file, I may make it my primary pocket gun. I'll probably just need more time to warm up to it.
Mauserguy

JWH, the firing pin for the striker version is MUCH thicker than the LC9. Hopefully any issues the LC9 had [parts breakage] were addressed and fixed before the release of the LC9s.

Click to expand...

I would surely hope so. I really liked the little guns, but their teething issues seemed a bit much. But I still have a 1964 model Ruger 10/22 and a .22 lr pistol from about the same era. Both have been way beyond excellent so I know that Ruger has the skills and abilities to produce a good one. Perhaps the LC9s will be exactly that.

But I'd bet a cheeseburger that Ruger will sell LC9s's by the car load, regardless of what I think. And most will love them.

I really like mine (my daughter's... purple even). Very good accuracy at 7 yards. The trigger is fine - much better than the KelTec P11 I used to own.

I handled the LC9s this weekend and it's a somewhat Glock-like trigger. Probably more to most people's liking, but not enough for me to go buy another one. If I were shopping today and I had a choice, I'd get the LC9s.

Hickok45 recently tested the new s model and really liked it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Opx_IFm0iQU

^ Yep! He liked it a LOT!

I have both the lc9 and Shield. The Shield is in my pocket always. Added night sights to the Shield that improved sight picture night and day, Trijicons that are low profile. Both pistols benefit from Pachmyer slip-on grips in my hands.

I like both, but better trigger and less felt recoil with better fit help me group better and much faster with the Shield. My wife likes the LC9 better so it worked out well.

It's a decent, reliable gun. It's light, but a bit longer than I'd like for concealed carry, which is why I went to a Kahr subcompact. But... Even with the old DAO trigger it was easy to shoot and be accurate.

I wouldn't put it in the same category as say a GLock 26 or a Springfield XD subcompact for long-term durability, but they're reliable enough to shoot sparingly at the range and carry for personal protection.

Someone on here used to do a lot of shooting with their LC9 at the range, but I've opened one up and I don't think it's built as robust as a range gun should be if you plan to carry it also.

I am going to get my wife an LC9 for her purse. It's an easy, accurate shooter.

Had a LC9 and LC380. Wasn't impressed with the triggers. Now I carry a Glock 42. I would like to try the new striker fired LC. The trigger was my only gripe.

FireInCairo said:

I wouldn't put it in the same category as say a GLock 26 or a Springfield XD subcompact for long-term durability, but they're reliable enough to shoot sparingly at the range and carry for personal protection.

Someone on here used to do a lot of shooting with their LC9 at the range, but I've opened one up and I don't think it's built as robust as a range gun should be if you plan to carry it also.

Click to expand...

Would you care to be more specific on the durability and robustness statements?

Since I'm in the market for this gun, I'd love to know specifically what you saw that makes the Ruger sub par.

or the hated loaded chamber indicator.

Click to expand...

hated by who? I don't recall that being a big hot button in posts I have read previously and scrolling through the responses to this post I don't see any evidence to support dissatisfaction with LCI. I realize some among us are purists but as add ons go the LCI is pretty benign. I have one on my XDm and it has never been a problem or obstruction. From a tactical standpoint it is a heck of a lot quieter than a press-check and much more reliable in the dark than a press-check.

LCI on the XDm [or XDs for that matter] isn't nearly as tall as on the LC9. I was VERY glad that it wasn't included on the LC9s. Makes for a cleaner looking slide.

Have one. Love it. The loaded chamber indicator is no problem. The first gun I ever fired was my grandfather's 38 special revolver. I don't mind the trigger. My only gripe is the nearly unusable slide release. It has smoothed up with use.

The LC9 is what it is. I treat it like a small carry revolver, I carry Glocks as my main SD (30SF and 21G4 for HD). But I grab my LC9 for casual carry situations. As far as shooting, no I don't shoot it as good as my Glocks, but I get acceptable groups rapid fire at 7 yards (dinner plate) with out working to hard. The new LC9S intrigues me but I'm not sure it intrigues me enough to make the change. OTOH, if Glock ever comes out with a single stack nine, my LC9 will probably hit the road.

The pluses:

Very easy to conceal

With a safety and long double action it's as easy a carry (pocket, waste band) as any revolver.

Points nice and natural

Reasonably accurate, and reasonable recoil.

Considerably more firepower than a 5 shot .38 in about the same package

The minuses:

It's not a range gun, it definitely feels like it's not made to take the abuse of a lot of rounds. But then again that not what it's made for.

There is no availability of night sights short of custom work.

It's not a .45

Just saw on Youtube that Ruger has come out with the LC9 S a striker fired LC9 that doesn't have the long trigger pull or the hated loaded chamber indicator.

Click to expand...

I wish they would have been that way from the start. I actually went with a Taurus 709 Slim instead of the LC9 because of the trigger.

The LC9 trigger is not "terrible",,,
It's just a long pull you need to practice with.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't have taken an issue with the trigger if it just reset after the first shot, but it doesn't. There is no possibility of double tapping it because you have to release the trigger nearly all the way back out to fire again. That's what turned me off on it.
I don't know that there will ever be a real world need for a double tap, but it's fun to practice.

I also have the original LC9; I use it as a backup to my other CC, which is a Ruger SR40c, Trigger pulls between the two are night and day different, but I have no issues switching back and forth between them, and the loaded chamber indicator is a total non-issue, I pay no attention to them anyway; I always visually check the chamber as force of habit from using handguns that don't have the indicator.

I like the compact size, it fits well in an ankle holster or a groin pouch, or in a pocket holster. I do shoot my LC9 less than the .40; due to its light weight, I find the recoil more objectionable than the heavier SR40c.

Had I the choice between the original and the new version, I'd pick the new one, just because of the striker fired action and its much shorter trigger pull, but I like the one I have just fine. I also have the LaserMax sight for it.