LCP MAX elevated to carry option.

[chicharrones]

If it said Prescott, AZ onj the slide and was a semiauto handgun, then I know why they had issues. Unbeknownst to them, they hired a functioning drunk and he had them fooled thinking that he was sober. He was there as an employee from the day that plant was opened and was canned when it came of light when they moved a camera to find out why a light pole that was freshly placed kept on getting knocked over.

A friend of mine had evicted him and it was only afterwards that he was able to tell me this. A former QA/QC manager was also able to confirm that as well.

Now you know. As for the other plants, heck if I know why there were issues or not.

The best I can tell, the LCP Max pistols are made in Mayodan, North Carolina. Mine is marked just like all the others in this thread.

View attachment 1111017

 

[MedWheeler]

chicharronas writes:

Then I fired the Max with my weak hand only and had no trigger pinching going on. So, I fired with my strong hand only and had no trigger pinching happening there either...

Though I didn't have any pinching issues, the LCP-MAX is one gun I've shot one-handed that actually felt much more natural that way (other than SA revolvers.) I can't even put my finger on why; it just does, so I shoot it better that way.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

The best I can tell, the LCP Max pistols are made in Mayodan, North Carolina. Mine is marked just like all the others in this thread.

View attachment 1111017

Ruger has a really good relationship with Gunsite. They bring their main lines out there, all duty grade and have their managers and engineers out there doing real courses and when there are problems, they are made known and told of just how many problems there were with any student provided Ruger.

I'm going to ask the rangemaster that I prefer to get my training from, if pocket guns are also being done because Gunsite does have those classes too. If interested, I did a cut & paste about his AAR with a Ruger class just for them and the issues that were had with their AR-15 DI flagship model.

 

[Ethan Verity]

Sheesh.. YOU CUT IT UP!!! Figure out how to make the dang thing work before you hack it up like that.

The magazines are a piss poor design on the MAX and Ruger did a half ass job turning the LCP into a double stack IMO. Dont cut your guns up though. Step back from it and put it away until you figure things out next time if you have to. Last thing you ever do is hack up a frame like that.

Cutting it up was a last resort, and honestly it felt great to just be done with it. I DID try to figure it out first, but with no luck. Through my trial and error I replaced the polymer frame, the magazine release, magazine release spring, all magazines, slide stop spring, and the barrel (original was rusty). Nothing made a difference, and between each repair I was wasting ammo at the range trying to confirm if it was finally working or not. There was nothing left for me to try, so I just wanted to throw it away. That's when I destroyed it, and I have no regrets about that at all (other than buying it in the first place).

 

[starling]

Cutting it up was a last resort, and honestly it felt great to just be done with it. I DID try to figure it out first, but with no luck. Through my trial and error I replaced the polymer frame, the magazine release, magazine release spring, all magazines, slide stop spring, and the barrel (original was rusty). Nothing made a difference, and between each repair I was wasting ammo at the range trying to confirm if it was finally working or not. There was nothing left for me to try, so I just wanted to throw it away. That's when I destroyed it, and I have no regrets about that at all (other than buying it in the first place).

Myself and others here probably could have walked you through it. DONT CUT UP YOUR FIREARMS! It likely could have just been as simple as tuning it. Being that these are mass produced budget pistols they often wont be tuned and replacing parts often wont do much. Ruger could do a better job of course but thats just not the market for them (tuned and hand fitted). Even sending pistols back to manufacturers doesnt always work as a lot of time the techs are not always highly skilled other than parts replacement. Most dont get paid a whole lot either.

Biggest flaw in those pistols is the magazaine design. Weak magazine spring combine with that kind bottleneck magtube is a big NoNo. If Ruger is commited to these they need to use thicker steel on the magazine tube and a thicker diameter spring wire and then Nickel plate the mag tube for reduced friction. They really botched the magazine on the MAX. I suspect we will see stronger magsprings pretty soon from either Ruger or the Aftermarket. That will "kinda" help but the whole magazine needs a redesign. How ruger screwed that up is beyond me. Shame on Ruger for that. Reliable double stack magazines in 380acp is not rocket science. If not you wait for Wolff (or another maker) comes out with some plus power mag springs you just use those and send your magazine tubes out to get NP3 (nickel teflon) coating.

Outside of that your just looking at standard feeding and extraction stuff for the most part assuming your FCG and Ignition system was working properly. Its not rocket science but there is a sequence of events that has to follow the "Law and Order" in a semi auto firearm.

There are a few true basket case pistols out there that were consistently bad. Cobra Patriots and Accu-teks come to mind (Dont buy them). I could wright VERY thick books on those! Most often..straight from the factory they simply wont run (the entire pistols are raw fit on those) . I have yet to not be able to make them 100% reliable though. Just have to be patient, work through the problems and NOT CUT THEM UP!

I am not saying people should run out and buy faulty designed firearms but once you have it take it easy. Lots of knowledgable people on the net that will go out of their way to help others be it Firearms, Automobiles, Appliaces etc. etc. No need to go to extremes and destroy things. Thats not a solution to anything. At worse you put it in a box and stow it away until you feel like messing with it or give it to someone who does. A single LCP Max doesnt take up much space.

Appologies for not seeing this thread sooner. You should send a link to Ruger and see what their response is. A good manufacturer would care about a customer being this unhappy. I suspect Ruger would but who knows these days.

 

[Ethan Verity]

I've washed my hands of the gun, and haven't given it a second thought since... at that point even if I did get it working, I wouldn't be willing to trust it with my life, which is where a carry gun needs to be ranked. It was worthless to me, and I didn't loose a second of sleep after destroying it.

 

[The_Quartermaster]

@chicharrones

A recent post from Freddie Blish about Ruger & Gunsite:

A conversation I had with each group of engineers and supervisors was my recommendation that they send two engineers with new guns through an applicable five day course at Gunsite because not only will the get three days square range stress on the guns, but two days of outdoor and indoor simulators (Scrambler, Military Crest, Donga, etc. and shoot houses). If it is going to fail it will fail during one of our 250, 350, 499 pistol classes, or 223, 556 Carbine classes, Battle Rifle, 270 Rifle, PR7 Precision Rifle.

 

[Bolson]

Ethan, I know you said you didn't trust ruger to fix it, but that seems a more reasonable 'last resort' than destruction. I get the frustration though...guns need to work...preferably without all the hassle.

I bought a Springfield 911 .380....its failure to feed was 50% at best. After trying several different brands of ammo with no luck I sent it back to SA. 2 weeks later they sent it back and it runs like a champ. No regrets.

 

[starling]

I've washed my hands of the gun, and haven't given it a second thought since... at that point even if I did get it working, I wouldn't be willing to trust it with my life, which is where a carry gun needs to be ranked. It was worthless to me, and I didn't loose a second of sleep after destroying it.

Understood. Hope you have better luck in the future with your next purchase.

 

[chicharrones]

Biggest flaw in those pistols is the magazaine design. Weak magazine spring combine with that kind bottleneck magtube is a big NoNo. If Ruger is commited to these they need to use thicker steel on the magazine tube and a thicker diameter spring wire and then Nickel plate the mag tube for reduced friction. They really botched the magazine on the MAX. I suspect we will see stronger magsprings pretty soon from either Ruger or the Aftermarket. That will "kinda" help but the whole magazine needs a redesign. How ruger screwed that up is beyond me. Shame on Ruger for that. Reliable double stack magazines in 380acp is not rocket science. If not you wait for Wolff (or another maker) comes out with some plus power mag springs you just use those and send your magazine tubes out to get NP3 (nickel teflon) coating.

It took me buying a Max to understand the reason for the magazine design. Using a traditional double stack .380 magazine would require a wider gun.

From my pics below, it is clear that the aluminum alloy subframe takes up quite a bit of internal space. The bottom of that subframe is just below the serial number window in the grip frame. Which is right where the magazine has to be single stack.

I can tell you that the magazine included with this gun was impossible to load cartridges 9 or 10 without the loader that Ruger provides with the Max. Now that I've fired the gun a bit and kept the magazine loaded, the mag spring has set a bit and I can load cartridges 9 and 10 without the loader. It's still hard to do, but it's possible now when it wasn't before.

Edit to add: Fortunately, the magazine is easy to disassemble and clean. It's probably wise to clean it after each shooting session. A simple internal wipe down with a slightly oiled bore cloth on a cleaning rod and a wipe down of the spring should keep it operating slickly.

View attachment 1111576

View attachment 1111577

View attachment 1111578

View attachment 1111579

 

[starling]

It took me buying a Max to understand the reason for the magazine design. Using a traditional double stack .380 magazine would require a wider gun.

From my pics below, it is clear that the aluminum alloy subframe takes up quite a bit of internal space. The bottom of that subframe is just below the serial number window in the grip frame.

I can tell you that the magazine included with this gun was impossible to load cartridges 9 or 10 without the loader that Ruger provides with the Max. Now that I've fired the gun a bit and kept the magazine loaded, the mag spring has set a bit and I can load cartridges 9 and 10 without the loader. It's still hard to do, but it's possible now when it wasn't before.

View attachment 1111576

View attachment 1111577

View attachment 1111578

View attachment 1111579

Everything you posted is correct. Thats why I was dissapointed in the Max. Steel subframe ( Grendel p12 type) solves the wider frame problem as the top of magwell would have more room internally.

The magazine itself all they had to do was scale down the S&W 59 design similar to what Cobra did for their 380 version of the patriot. Thats a well proven and reliable design for the width of 9mm case head while still having thin shoulders on the mag tube. Kellgren was no dummy useing it for the P11s.

Those bottleneck design magazines always had issues the designers are just lazy. Russians kinda made them work (hi cap makarovs) with a double follower two spring system. Llama tried the bottlenecks when they turned the Omini into a doublestack and they were never that great either. Ruger probably could have made it work but its pretty obvious to me that their designers are not up to that task. Best course for them (if they were commited to flukey mag design) would have been to sacrifice a round and just mimic what the russians did. Put a dual follower system in it and beef up the steel thickness of the magazine tube. Double stack magazines have a lot of internal friction as is. The Bottleneck designs are much worse. Russian makarov bottlenecks are a real PIA to load as well compared to the single stack. The springs are a whole lot stronger.

Of course if it was me at Ruger the max would have gotten a double feed magazine (Grendel p10 uses it) whick are easiest designs to load, would bump the flush fit mags up to 12/13 and the subframe would be steel (grendel p12) which Ruger has the ability to do (Ruger American pistols) but instead went cheap and lazy. Double feed magazines are extremely easy to design and manufacturer so the bulk of the work would just be in the feed system into the chamber. No biggy there though as all they had to do was take a look at another Kellgren design which Im sure they have samples sitting in their R&D room. There is only one potential problem to be solved in that case but with all the resources Ruger has they should have been able to get it figured out.

Right now they have so many LCP Maxs out on the market the best move they could make is going back to the drawing board and fixing the bottleneck magazine. The magazine they are useing now should have never made it past the testing phase... if they did test it (I doubt they did much). Doesnt matter how reliable or well made a pistol is if the magazine is garbage. Even something great reliability wise like a Glock, Beretta, Ruger P series will start choking with a bad magazine. At the very least they could strengthen up the springs and nickel teflon coat those magazine tubes. They would still be fragile as heck but it would get the reliability up. Im not exagerting when I say its one of the worst magazines I have ever seen in a major manufacturer. The quality is right in there with a Jennings/Jiminez JA9 9mm. Shame on Ruger.

The pistol has lots of potential so I hope eventually Ruger goes back to the days of old and starts doing things right again. A LCP Max 2.0 thats built and designed to the Max.. steel frame, +P rated, Reliable and strong magazines etc. etc...... that could well end up being one of the greatest pocket autos ever made.

 

[chicharrones]

I’d like to see the dimensions of the Grendel P12 with detachable magazine.

The LCP Max aluminum subframe is about 0.090” thick on each side of the mag well. It doesn’t appear that it can be made significantly thin enough to widen the magwell opening even if the subframe were made of steel.

Edit to add:

If the 0.090" were shaved in half due to steel construction, that leaves 0.045" per side of the subframe. Which adds back 0.090" to the possible subframe opening at the magwell, allowing a 0.090" wider magazine at the top.

Seems like the LCP Max would still need to be wider than the current 0.790" that it measures at the slide and upper grip frame.

Ruger could've increased the slide width to equal the 0.950" of the magwell portion of the grip, but I'd guess Ruger was trying to keep the gun as slim and light as possible.