from LCP to LC9S

Status
Not open for further replies.

76shuvlinoff

Member
Joined
Jul 6, 2007
Messages
2,317
Location
Michigan
I am fortunate in that I can choose to carry most calibers from .380 to full size .45acp. More often than not I stick my .380 LCP in my pocket or belt. I would like a slim single stack 9 and have been thinking about the LC9S. I have handled LC9 and hated the trigger. I understand this is rectified with the striker fired "S".

I like how the .380 LCP just disappears and it hits where I point it regardless of the crap sights, but the 9mm is calling me. Has anyone here handled/carried/used both the LCP and the LC9S? Comparisons?

Another concern for me is I am a devout lefty. The LC9s has a safety where my LCP does not.


Thank you.
Mark
 
I fired a friend's LCP .380 and LC9 (don't think it was the 'S') some time ago. My main memory is that the nine did a better job filling my hand. My hands are on the large, skinny side, so I tend to like something a tad bigger.

Kahr makes some small 9mm's - not as thin as those Rugers, but definitely not fat - that lack external safeties.
 
Unless, you can switch the safety to the LH I would NOT go with an LC9S. I've handled a few and the trigger is far lighter than most NIB Glocks. I would not consider it safe for carry without a safety unless you had a substantial holster, which kind of defeats the purpose of a light, thin, small carry gun.

I own an LC9 (not S) now and for what it is (a revolver substitute) it does a great job. The revolver like trigger is fine and produces more than acceptable accuracy inside 7 yards, with less recoil than a .38 special, and more firepower, and capacity. It's a great gun, but the S is not a safe carry option w/o the safety engaged.
 
As far as safeties go I have a subcompact XD40sc. It only has the glockesque trigger safety. I see the LC9S also has that feature plus the conventional safety. I can run the RH safety and mag release on my 1911 with my trigger finger. I have also done that with the decocker on Sig in a defensive pistol class I took a lifetime ago. I have not handled the LC9S yet to see if it really is an issue for me or not ... but it is a concern.

Thanks,
Mark
 
I am a lefty and the LC9 safety put me off as well. It still holds for the 9s because of the noted lightness of the trigger. I have a Remington R51 instead and fortunately, mine does not have any major problems like others have had. If Remington gets the R51 right in the re-intro scheduled for this month, it might be an option for you to consider as the grip safety makes it fully ambidextrous and it is only 1/2" longer than the LC9.
 
I don't have one yet but I plan to pick one up (LC9s that is). I'm not crazy about the safety, either. A couple other options you might consider for a thin single stack nine are the Beretta Nano, Bersa BP9CC and S&W Shield (the no safety version would be best since you're a lefty). I love my Nano and carry it much of the time, and I'm up over the 2,000 round mark with zero issues or malfunctions. I had about 1000 flawless rounds on my BP9CC before my sister "stole" it.
 
I've looked at the lc9s a couple times as well as the other single stack 9mms. I know I'm in the minority, but I just can't justify one. If I have to carry iwb, I might as well a higher capacity gun.

I have found that pocket .380s usually get more carry time from me simply because my daily dress attire requires it.

I have an LCP that has been a reliable little gun with zero malfunctions short of not eating Tula steel case ammo. I have recently switched to an M&P bodyguard simply because I wanted something new with better sights.

The lc9s is still on my radar along with the nano and the shield, but I have a feeling I won't carry them as much as the pocket .380s.
 
I have an LC9 and don't have a problem with the trigger (maybe because I was brought up on revolvers) and don't feel it needs the safety any more than a revolver or a Kahr pistol do, so I just leave it off.
 
I have an LC9 and don't have a problem with the trigger (maybe because I was brought up on revolvers) and don't feel it needs the safety any more than a revolver or a Kahr pistol do, so I just leave it off.
I am used to operating thumb safeties but being a lefty they need to be ambi or LHO. Just ignoring the thumb safety on the LC9/9s is an option, but expecting it to be OFF and finding it accidentally set ON and on the wrong side of the pistol is an option I would rather avoid. :uhoh:
 
As far as safeties go I have a subcompact XD40sc. It only has the glockesque trigger safety. I see the LC9S also has that feature plus the conventional safety. I can run the RH safety and mag release on my 1911 with my trigger finger. I have also done that with the decocker on Sig in a defensive pistol class I took a lifetime ago. I have not handled the LC9S yet to see if it really is an issue for me or not ... but it is a concern.

Thanks,
Mark

The problem with the glockesque trigger safety on the L9S is that it is a very light trigger. Most 1911's have heavier trigger pulls (including two excellent Kimbers I've owned) than the L9S. It is far lighter than any of the Glock triggers except on the competition guns. I have a G19 with a lightening strike trigger that sets up at 3.5 pounds, I would never carry it without a very robust holster. The L9S's I've tried had a lighter trigger than my G19. Most police officers (and they are carrying in very robust holsters carry Glocks with 5 pound plus triggers, the NYC std is 11 pounds!) For a lefty it's a no go like I said before for safe carry, especially with the kind of carry that most people do with small light guns like the LC9.

OTOH, the regular LC9 would be carryable without the safety engaged if the OP could deal with the trigger (I have no problem dealing with mine).
 
Thanks all for the input. The RH safety is definitely something I need to consider. My only other semi auto pistols with safeties are my Kimber .45 (ambi and grip) and my WWII P38, I don't carry that one anyhow. My XD40 is trigger and grip, my LCP is what it is and gets the most carry time.

Most 1911's have heavier trigger pulls (including two excellent Kimbers I've owned) than the L9S.

My Kimber is 3 to 3.5 lbs. The LC9S is less than that?

Thanks!
 
My LC9s trigger is no where close to that light, in fact I'd call it pretty close to Glock in terms of weight. Mr burk was shooting a very strange example of the LC9s. Having said that, I'd be reluctant to recommend the gun for left hand carry. All too often I found the safety on my SR9 had been bumped on or off while carrying. Either get a gun without a safety or with am ambi safety.
 
Last edited:
The difference between the LCP and LC9 on paper is tiny. In size on the body, the LC9 is basically double in size. The LCP/P3ATs are small enough and light enough to be forgotten. Any above them because too heavy and too big.
 
We have both; mine is the "s" version. We like them both as they are what they are. If you prefer striker fired you should get that model. The magazines are the same for both models and work fine in either. All five of our "Made in USA" magazines needed the follower to be thinned down a tiny bit (400 grit emery cloth on a sheet of glass) to correct sticking but that was simple and worked to perfection.

My LC9s' trigger is not all that light. It feels a lot like any of my Glocks and our Ruger SR guns.

The LC9s has become my carry piece after some 300 rounds or so. Maybe a few more
 
Exactly! The safety on my LC9 is pretty stiff and I can't see it getting knocked on accidentally if the pistol is carried in a holster.

I'm sorry, I'm gonna disagree. If a right hand gun is being carried by a lefty, the safety lever will be away from the body and susceptible to being bumped against things and knocked either on or off. I know because it has happened to me numerous times while carrying my SR9c with an ambidextrous safety in GOOD QUALITY holsters. The safety on my SR9 is stiffer than my LC9s.

It's your choice, but pretending it isn't there is not wise in my experience.
 
I've shot the LCP and I own the LC9S. I felt the LCP trigger was a deal breaker. Way too long and heavy for me. I dry fired the LC9S at the LGS and I was hooked. It's remarkably shorter than the LCP and smooth with a nice break and didn't pull me off point of aim like the LCP. I carry mine iwb and it conceals very well in the throw down Uncle Mike's holster. At 7-10 yds 3-4" groups are easily obtainable. In a good holster, I feel it's a great EDC option. I love mine.

BUT Ruger has some real problems with it. First was the guide rod. That is fixed with a newly designed conical guide rod. Mine went back to the factory for failure to lock open. They replaced the guide rod with the current design, the grip frame, mag release and spring and the magazine. I only have 100 rnds post repair and no problems so far but too early to tell. 300ish rnds total. People have reported mags falling out and one poor guy had the firing pin launch out the back of the slide. Galloway Precision has upgrade parts coming to the rescue.

For me, once deemed reliable, it will be an excellent EDC option. I've recommended it to friends, but probably prudent to wait for the bugs to shake out.
 
UbiquitousI went from the LCP to the Kahr cw380, all I can say is WOW I can hit the target now and its twice the gun in my opinion.
Another plus a stricker blocker, lcp just has a half cocked hammer
 
Surprised no one has mentioned it yet: consider the Springfield XD-S 9mm. No manual safety to deactivate (has the trigger safety and the backstrap safety), and it even has a mag release you can hit with a lefty thumb. A touch thicker than an LC9.

Mine is my summer EDC -- 7+1 in the pistol, and I carry a 9-round backup mag. (The LCP is a BUG, either in a pocket or on my ankle if I'm wearing dress pants.)
 
Last edited:
Surprised no one has mentioned it yet: consider the Springfield XD-S 9mm.

I looked at the XDs when looking to downsize from my SR9c and ruled it out due to size and weight... a good bit bigger and a LOT heavier than the LC9s. It weighs as much as my double stack SR9c.
 
Due to my very large hands I can't use most tiny 9's very well. My Ruger LC9 is an exception. I can shoot it just fine and to me the felt recoil is less than my little Kel-Tec 380 (pretty much identical to the Ruger 380). I leave the safety off. The trigger pull is heavy enough for me to feel safe with pocket carry, but not heavy enough to affect my shooting to any great extent. I would prefer it without the safety, but I would imagine it would be easy enough to remove or disable.
 
I owned them both, and sold them both. The LCP would have been the one I kept if I hadn't sworn off of 380's, after too many articles like this one, http://hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/.../hunting.about.com/od/guns/l/aast9mmv380a.htm
The LC9, "first run" was poor at best, The Trigger felt like it was falling off. It fired but I could not keep it like that, and Ruger said that was the way they designed it so it would not seize under rapid fie.
When it comes to personal-defense carry, most people buy little guns. The single largest category of handguns bought in the US during recent years has been small, short-barrel, pocket-size defense models-autoloaders and revolvers alike. In terms of caliber selection (not counting the sub-effective .22 and .25 chamberings), the two most popular choices within this dominant portion of the overall handgun pie are the 380 ACP and the 9mm.

In today's market, compact and pocket-size guns available for the 9mm and the 380 have essentially the same range of available features and performance capabilities-in fact, identical pocket-size 9mm and 380 pistol versions are increasingly available from the same manufacturer. You can choose among single-action, double-action, or so-called DAO mechanisms, with the same type of sighting setups and safety-operating mechanisms, and choices of steel, aluminum, or molded-polymer frames for either cartridge. Which means the choice is really between the capabilities of the cartridges, not the guns.

The 9mm Wins Hands Down

So for a short-barreled, concealment-size pocket pistol, all features of the guns being equal, which cartridge choice is best for personal defense, 380 or 9mm? Some have argued that in the very short barrels (in the 3.0- to 3.25-inch range) typically found on small pistols, the apparent ballistic advantage of the longer case 9mm is canceled and the two loads' performances are essentially the same. My own actual side-by-side testing doesn't prove that out. In fact, there really isn't very much of a contest at all. The 9mm wins hands down.

The 9mm Luger cartridge (also known as the 9mm Parabellum, 9mm NATO, and 9x19mm) is actually the oldest of today's mainstream semiautomatic pistol rounds (it was introduced in 1902), but because of its comparatively recent surge to popularity in this country, most American shooters think of it as relatively "modern" in comparison to other popular autoloader cartridges like the 45 ACP (1905). The 380 ACP is nothing other than a short 9mm (its German name, in fact, 9mm Kurtz, literally translates as 9mm Short), and like the 22 Short in relation to the 22 Long Rifle, or even the 38 Special in relation to the 357 Magnum, the shorter cartridge has only a portion of the authority of the longer 9mm.

In Europe the 380 Auto/9mm Short has at various times been an official military cartridge, and it is much favored by police agencies in many nations as a primary duty round. In the US it has always been seen as a minor-power backup load. And, compared to the 9mm, that's where it belongs.

SAAMI industry-standard catalog specifications for the two cartridges rate the 380 at approximately 950 fps velocity and 200 foot-pounds (ft-lbs) energy for JHP bullets in the 90- to 100-grain weight range while the 9mm (which is offered in a much wider range of bullet weights and styles) is specced at 1150 fps and 340 ft-lbs energy with a 115-grain JHP bullet and 990 fps and 320 ft-lbs energy with heavier 147-grain JHP subsonic loads. In raw energy terms alone, then, the 9mm has about a 65 percent advantage. (Standard four-inch ballistic test barrels are employed for the SAAMI ratings for both cartridges.)

However, in view of the fact that actual cartridge effect in target is always more determined by bullet design and performance than by mathematical energy formulas, particularly when using guns with barrels shorter than SAAMI test fixtures, I (several years ago) fired a series of commercial 9mm and 380 loads from compact pistols into 10-percent ballistic gelatin blocks calibrated to FBI evaluation standards to gauge their impact effectiveness with the gel set at a personal-defense distance of 20 feet. I was interested in determining whether these two cartridges' performance in actual guns corresponded to their "on paper" ratings.

This was when down-sized 9mm pistols had just begun to enter the market in sizable numbers following the enactment of the 1994 Crime bill's magazine limitations, and the pistols used were a 3.5-inch Star Firestar for the 9mm and a three-inch S&W Baby Sigma for the 380 ACP. When I reported the results, which were overwhelmingly in favor of the 9mm, I received response from fans of the 380 who argued that the half-inch longer barrel of the Firestar pistol gave the 9mm an unfair advantage in my comparison, and that if I'd used guns of the same barrel length the 380 would have ranked much better in comparison.

I was confident of the basic "balance of power" my results indicated but also acknowledged that with short-barrel guns sometimes a very slight increase or decrease in absolute length can have a significant effect on bullet velocity, depending on particular powders and their burn rates. So when Taurus introduced its Millennium series of pocket-size compact autos a couple of years ago with identically configured 9mm and 380 versions, I resolved to redo the gel-performance review. Both the Taurus Millennium model PT111 9mm and the model PT138 380 are identical in features, size, and 3.25-inch barrel length, with the only difference between them being the actual specifications of the cartridge firing chambers.

The results of my side-by-side review firings with today's premium defense loads are listed in the chart below and closely correspond to the earlier Firestar versus Baby Sigma results. Overall, the 9mm provides a 40 percent greater wounding effectiveness (based on wound channel surface area) than does the 380. When equivalent bullet designs in the two cartridges are compared directly (for example, the Winchester SXTs and Remington Golden Sabers), the distinction is obvious. The 380 is simply not in the same performance class as the 9mm, even though the subjective experience of firing the two pistols is very much the same.

If your personal-defense handgun is going to be a small autoloader, and you are buying it because the chance exists that it may someday have to save your life, the choice between a 380 or a 9mm is still a no-brainer. Get a 9mm.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top