LC9s

[jacob2745]

I have been looking around casually for a while at the single stack 9's. Of the ones on the market right now the shield, xds, cm9, and the lc9s have drawn my attention. I'm actually leaning toward the ruger and that is suprising to me.
I initially was set on the xds until I started really looking at price. From what I see it is at least $100 more than anything on my list, and I just don't see $100 of addititional value but that's me. The cm9 has been taken off the list because of all the reports of terrible kahr cs. Finally the shield, and this is where things get confusing. My carry gun right now is primarily a m&p9c and I love it. I just want something a little thinner, so you would think the shield would be the obvious choice. I also know everyone raves about the shield. I don't know if it's just me wanting something different or what, but something is pushing me away from the shield. As far as the lc9 goes I have never tried the trigger on one so I'm not sure about it. I'm also not crazy about the mag disconnect. Any lc9s owners out there that can chime in?

 

[TarDevil]

I've just gone through the same process, and I'll share my analysis. YMMV.

I currently carry a Ruger SR9c... love the gun in every way except the weight is becoming a problem with my back problems, so I need something lighter.

That ruled out the XDs and Shield... just not enough weight savings for me. Plus, the Shield trigger just didn't cut it for me. Again, you may like it OK. And, if weight is not so much of an issue for you, both of these guns are excellent otherwise.

I passed on the Kahr for several reasons... no magic when I held it. Trigger was nice and smooth, just a little long. I too am gun shy of the QC and service problems I've been reading about.

The LC9 is the right weight, felt nice, pointed well, safety has a nice tactile feel and the price certainly is right. Only problem at this point is the gun shop didn't have the "s" model in stock. That will be remedied by Tuesday. If I like the trigger it will come home with me.

 

[mxl]

I recently bought the lc9s and love it. Reliable, trigger is nice. It settled in at 5lbs, 1 oz. as measured with a Lyman digital pull gauge. I have since done a little fooling around with the striker spring and the blocker spring and the pull is now 4lbs. 6oz. and no light primer strikes.

 

[jacob2745]

I appreciate the replies guys. I need to find somewhere that has the lc9s in stock so I can fondle it some.

 

[Bush Pilot]

Another vote for the LC9s. I've had mine about a month and really like the gun. I've let friends shoot it and they can't believe how much nicer the trigger is than the older LC9. The guy than owns my LGS is concerned about being able to sell his remaining LC9 stock once people see the difference in the 2 guns.

 

[mdauben]

I just recently picked up an LC9s. I was in the market for a smaller, single-stack 9mm for pocket and IWB carry. I liked the original LC9 except for the trigger, LCI and mag safety. The new LC9s addresses two of those three problems (still has the mag safety, unfortunatly). I have not had a chance to wring it out on the range but I'm happy with it after my preliminary inspection. Fits my hand better than the CM9 (3 finger vs 2 finger grip), good sights, reasonable weight, seems very well made. I'll know more if I can get out to the range this week.

Only problem is after test pocket carrying it around the house in a DeSantis Superfly holster this last weekend, it is IMO pushing the pocket pistol designation. I would certainly reject anything larger/heavier for pocket carry. Still, once I got used to it, pocket carry was doable. If you are really concerned about weight, bulk and/or printing, you probably need to consider dropping down to a smaller pistol in .380, .32 or even .25 cal.

 

[jacob2745]

It will be used primarily for iwb carry. I have a j frame that does pocket duty.

 

[ku4hx]

We have an LC9 and an LC9s and we do prefer the "s" version for a number of reason. Primarily because of the trigger, but it also has no lawyer lock and no "Loaded When Up" loaded chamber indicator. The barrel still has the cut for it though.

LC9 magazines work perfectly is the "s". I had to sand down the side of the "USA" followers a mite to get them to rise smoothly but that was a no-brainer and took less than ten minutes for five of them.

We're just not sure if we want to sell or trade the LC9 and get a second "s". Once you learn to shoot the LC9 it's a very nice little gun. Both are very accurate and now that I've fixed the sticking followers functioning has been flawless.

Edit:
The first center fire semi auto I ever owned, and still have, is a "T" model Browning Hi-Power I bought in 1969. It has a mag safety and this safety prevents free drop out of the magazine. Over the years I've never found either the magazine safety or how it affects magazine change to be any big deal. In fact, it wasn't until I read on the internet just a few years back that I even had a problem. Funny how that works. If a mag safety is: a deal breaker, a bad thing, makes you feel insecure and etc. then you need to avoid it. I choose to adapt and in almost half century of shooting that philosophy has allowed me to enjoy all types of guns with all types of features.

 

[mxl]

I just recently picked up an LC9s. I was in the market for a smaller, single-stack 9mm for pocket and IWB carry. I liked the original LC9 except for the trigger, LCI and mag safety. The new LC9s addresses two of those three problems (still has the mag safety, unfortunatly). I have not had a chance to wring it out on the range but I'm happy with it after my preliminary inspection. Fits my hand better than the CM9 (3 finger vs 2 finger grip), good sights, reasonable weight, seems very well made. I'll know more if I can get out to the range this week.

Only problem is after test pocket carrying it around the house in a DeSantis Superfly holster this last weekend, it is IMO pushing the pocket pistol designation. I would certainly reject anything larger/heavier for pocket carry. Still, once I got used to it, pocket carry was doable. If you are really concerned about weight, bulk and/or printing, you probably need to consider dropping down to a smaller pistol in .380, .32 or even .25 cal.

I see the mag. safety as a non-issue. However, it can be removed. A search on Youtube.com will get you the info needed to do that.

 

[mdauben]

I see the mag. safety as a non-issue. However, it can be removed. A search on Youtube.com will get you the info needed to do that.

I'm sure it could. I removed the mag safety on my Ruger Mk.III, to improve the trigger. That's just a target pistol, though. I'm somewhat reluctant to perform mods on a SD pistol due to potential questions if it was ever involved in a shooting situation.

 

[mxl]

In my mind it would be a real stretch of the imagination to conjure up a scenario where a mag safety would be a hindrance to self defense. However, if you can perform a mod on a SD pistol that might give you an edge in neutralizing someone trying to kill you [like a lighter trigger that makes you more accurate] I certainly would not be concerned about the remote possibility that some dimwit lawyer would try to twist that against you.

 

[jacob2745]

The mag disconnect isn't a huge issue and I probably wouldn't remove it. I would just rather not have it.

 

[bangswitch]

Only downside I see to a mag disconnect is you can't decock the pistol without sticking an empty mag in. If you follow safe use practices, the disconnect isn't necessary, but isn't bad to have.

I've got the LC9 original. I think I'd like the new one better, but the long trigger pull isn't too bad, you get used to it quickly. The pistol shoots very well, I use mine in a groin holster (Thunderwear) or ankle carry.

 

[Killian]

If you are going to get an LC9, get the LC9s. The original gun was improved on for a reason. The long trigger pull on the original model does not promote accuracy.

 

[mdauben]

In my mind it would be a real stretch of the imagination to conjure up a scenario where a mag safety would be a hindrance to self defense.

Accidently hit the mag release. Mag drops or back out enough to lock up the "mag safety" gun. No mag safetly means you at least have one shot availible before you have to reseat or replace the mag. Many guns have markedly improved triggers after removing the mag safety.

Only downside I see to a mag disconnect is you can't decock the pistol without sticking an empty mag in. If you follow safe use practices, the disconnect isn't necessary, but isn't bad to have.

Different opinions. I see no benefit at all to a mag safety other than to make the company lawyers happy. I tolerate it on some guns but I would much rather it wasn't there.

 

[Gary A]

I do find myself wondering why, if they wanted to improve the trigger on the LC9, they did not follow their own lead as with the LCP and modify the pre-set of the LC9 hammer, shortening the trigger pull that way. Personally I tend to like hammer fired guns better than striker fired guns and had they followed the LCP lead and also replaced the LCI with the LC9s viewing port, I'm sure I would buy one. As it is, I continue to be "meh". That said, I think they'll sell a boatload of them. I'll stick with my Sig P 290rs, with no manual safety, no LCI, no mag disconnect, nite sights, stainless slide and hammer-fired with a long but very smooth trigger, and true DAO.

 

[C0untZer0]

I got to dry fire an LC9 and LC9s side by side. The LC9s has a much better trigger.

I was reminded of how bad the LC9 trigger is