New Ruger 380 Pistol!! LC380

[Girodin]

It should have a mild recoil spring so it makes it easy for them to work to slide. I think it's a great idea. Maybe just not for the guys who hang out on this forum.

This. Except if I was in the market for such a gun I'd rather have the sig P238. It is a soft shooter, a good shooter, easy to run and is appreciably smaller than this new Ruger.

I recently was trying to help a woman select a smaller carry gun. It needed to be a gun that fit within her wardrobe. Its fine to say dress around the gun, but the reality is some folks simply wont, and it may not be reasonable (or financially plausible) to expect them to go out and get a whole new wardrobe. The way in which many women dress can make some carry options unworkable. This requirement meant a relatively small gun.

I personally believe a carry gun needs to be something the person can shoot relatively well under stress and run relatively well under stress as well. While I like the LCP for what it is, it often fails this requirement. I do not find the recoil to be harsh. It is a snappy gun though and for most folks it is not something they can shoot or run that well. Between being very small, having extremely crude sights, and a long heavy trigger it is not a great shooter for lots of folks. The small size and/or relatively stiff recoil spring can make it hard for some folks to run. After trying out my LCP we didn't feel it was a great option despite how easy it was to conceal and carry.

We next looked at my Kahr CM9. This gun is IMHO and the based on shot timer results a better shooter for most folks. Recoil is no more snappy, and perhaps less so than what is experienced with the LCP. It is notably larger but still a pretty small gun. The issue we ran into was that the double recoil spring in this very small gun rated to handle +p 9x19 is very stiff. It was not a gun that this person could run without concerted effort. The fact is some folks have issues with their hands and a real stiff spring that is required in real small 9x19s can make running the gun very difficult. It may not be an issue for you or me, but that doesn't mean its not a real one for other people.

With the CM9 ruled out, we went to the Colt Mustang and the copy cat Sig 238. These guns come in between the LCP and CM9 in terms of size. I think these guns are about as small as you can get before you start hitting diminishing returns by going smaller. In fact for someone with smaller hands they are sized very well. These guns are light weight. They aren't quite as invisible as the LCP, but are very near the same end of the spectrum when it comes to the easy of carrying and concealing one.

These two gun are IMHO, which is based on shot timer results and target, 10x the shooters that the LCP is in most folks hands. I'd hate to be in a gun fight period, I'd hate even more to only have a hand gun. However, if it were a choice between the LCP and the Sig/Colt I'd not hesitate for a second in which I'd rather have.

Lastly, the slides and other controls of these two guns were very easy to work. They met the last criteria of being a gun that can be run well.

The sig P238 (or guns like it) is not my choice of a primary carry gun. However, it, and guns like it may be the right answer for some folks.

This new ruger will be a cheaper gun than the colt or sig. It will be cheaper than other guns I might prefer, such as the Sig 232. For many people, right, wrong, or otherwise that ends up heavily influencing their purchasing decision. In sum, a slightly larger .380 may have a niche that is not well served by either a smaller 380 or a similarly sized 9x19. Ruger has been doing well with their line up of small carry guns (LCP, LCR, LC9). I'd imagine they are responding to some form of market research in releasing this gun. It is not aimed at me, nor do I have any interest. That does not mean it does not have a market though.

 

[Girodin]

One reason I use the SIG is that mini 9's like the CW9 from KAHR and the LC9 from RUGER have really bad recoil.

First, I'd not call the CW a mini 9. In fact, Kahr has another size of gun that gets the mini designation the PM9/CM9/MK9. I've never found the CW or P9 to have objectionable recoil or recoil that greatly affects my ability to shoot it. In fact those guns shoot basically as well to me (using timers and targets) as does the steel framed K9. If recoil is the only objection you might look at the steel framed guns the K9 and even the the MK9.

 

[19-3Ben]

It is a soft shooter, a good shooter, easy to run and is appreciably smaller than this new Ruger.

I can understand most of your assertions here, but the Ruger JUST came out. have you had a chance to shoot it yet to compare?

 

[C0untZer0]

I think it's great.

I wish they would chamber the SP 101 for 380 ACP too, and make moonclips.

Something for everyone...

 

[Girodin]

I can understand most of your assertions here, but the Ruger JUST came out. have you had a chance to shoot it yet to compare?

No, but I have had ample time with rugers most similar offerings. My statement that I would prefer the sig is based on comparing it to the LCP, LC9 (and even in terms of construction the LCR). I seriously doubt that the new LC380 is going to differ much save in terms of chambering and recoil from the LC9. Comparing the LC9 with imagined lighter recoil, I would prefer the smaller Sig P238. Perhaps once I get trigger time on the LC380 I will find there is something about it that makes it notably better than the LC9.

That would be a big heavy .380. 38 special out of the Sp101 makes it a creme puff. IMHO a neater idea would be a scaled down LCR. Take advantage of the short OAL of the .380 and shrink the cylinder length, like Taurus did. Use the LCR trigger which is much better than my SP101 that has had a trigger job. You could even make it a steel framed gun a la the 357 LCR to add a little weight to make it a softer shooter.

I'm not sure there is a real market for such a thing. I'd likely select on of the small semis over it and imagine many others would as well. 9x19 revolvers never seem to do well, hence Ruger dropping the 9x19 Sp101. I'm not sure why this is, as I like a snub in 9mm more than 38 special or 357 (longer barrel lengths are a different story). I'm not sure 380 ACP would do better than 9mm.

 

[golden]

Wrong on this

GIRODIN,

If I wanted to carry a steel framed KAHR pistol to reduce the recoil, why not just carry a bigger gun with more grip area that will not have the recoil problem, like the GLOCK 19, SIG 225, SPRINGFIELD XD9 Sub Compact or WALTHER P99?

Well, I do on occasion carry a larger gun, but you cannot carry them in a pocket, nor can I carry the KAHR 9 with the steel frame in a pocket. It is too heavy for that.

You have missed two points.

One, that to be concealable, a gun has to be small and light enough to be carried in the desired manner, but still be controlable and comfortable enough to allow adequate practice and shoot accurately under stressful circumstances.

Second, recoil is subjective. I used to work with an officer who shot a S&W model 29 revolver with full power .44 magnum ammo and used the original wooden grips. He could do it, I would not even try.
When I tried the LC9 and the CW9, both were unpleasant to shoot. I did not want to fire a full box of ammo though either of them ever again.
I have the same issue with the NAA Guardian, even though it is in .32ACP.
The grip area is so small that it becomes hard to shoot, even with a round as mild as the .32ACP.

I have no problems qualifying with my duty gun which is a .40 S&W caliber H&K, but I cannot carry that in my pocket either.
I can do that with the SIG 232 and I could do it with the RUGER LC380, if it proves acceptable, based on the criteria I listed.

Jim

 

[heeler]

There's no doubt the Ruger will give the Bersa Thunder a run for the money as well as anything Taurus makes in .380 as long as they are priced close to one another.
I would like to see and hold the new Ruger and I am sure it will be a reliable pistol.

 

[Girodin]

GIRODIN,

If I wanted to carry a steel framed KAHR pistol to reduce the recoil, why not just carry a bigger gun with more grip area that will not have the recoil problem, like the GLOCK 19, SIG 225, SPRINGFIELD XD9 Sub Compact or WALTHER P99?

I personally don't feel the need to. One reason might be that the Kahr is a smaller thinner gun than those you mention (some of which I own to make the direct comparison). Some folks may prefer it because it is smaller. I would have to think that the people that would consider a polymer frame kahr over a glock do so because of the size.

nor can I carry the KAHR 9 with the steel frame in a pocket. I

I cannot even carry a P9 pr CW9 in a front pocket either. I doubt I could carry the LC380. I don't often wear clothing that would be conducive to that. Although I have a few pairs of pants that will fit a G26 I have many more that make an LCP tough to draw quickly, and would not fit anything bigger than a PM9. It seems pockets vary greatly and people have pretty disparate opinions on what guns are pocketable. For me it tends to be pretty small guns and in fact, I'm not a very big fan of pocket carry for a primary for a number of reasons, to begin with. Pocket carry has a few advantages and a lot of very significant trade offs. Typically I do not pocket carry a primary unless I don't have other choices. For others the trade offs may be worth it.

You have missed two points.

Actually I don't think I missed either of them and if you read my comments in the post above the one you seem to be responding to they are in fact premised on just those ideas.

One, that to be concealable, a gun has to be small and light enough to be carried in the desired manner, but still be controlable and comfortable enough to allow adequate practice and shoot accurately under stressful circumstances.

That is basically what I said my/our requirements were when helping pick out a carry gun. I discussed it in multiple paragraphs so I'm not sure how you think I missed the point.

Second, recoil is subjective.

I don't think I missed that point either. You'll note I said:

I've never found the CW or P9 to have objectionable recoil or recoil that greatly affects my ability to shoot it. In fact those guns shoot basically as well to me (using timers and targets) as does the steel framed K9 (emphasis added).

I simply stated my personal experience and clearly denoted it as such. You on the other hand are the one that stated in absolute terms that polymer kahrs have "really bad recoil." I'm not sure why you feel that I am the one that doesn't understand FELT recoil is subjective (recoil its self is measurable). FWIW I read your comments to reflect your opinion and perception rather than be absolute fact.

You seem to have read over a very important qualifier I put in my post. I said

If recoil is the only objection you might look at the steel framed guns the K9 and even the the MK9 (emphasis added).

If weight or size is an additional objection then the steel frame gun may not be a good choice.

I'm more than slightly amused by you titling your post in a way telling me I'm wrong when essentially all I posted was "If recoil is the only objection you might look at the steel framed guns the K9 and even the the MK9."

I guess suggesting that you might find that the K9 has less felt recoil than a P9 is something I'm wrong about. Or maybe I'm some how wrong in suggesting that if recoil is the only concern it might be a gun worth looking at. Ok, don't consider it.

One final thought on recoil perception. Technique, along with other factors, can greatly affect recoil perception.

 

[weblance]

WEBLANCE,

This sounds interesting. My off duty gun is a SIG 232 with night sights.

The RUGER weighs the same, is only 1/5 inch less in height and 2/3 of inch shorter. It is noticably thinner at 9/10 of inch.

My questions are:

1. How is the trigger? The trigger on my SIG is great.

2. Can I get night sights?

3. Will the RUGER be as reliable as my SIG.

Im basing my answer off of my exoerience with my LC9.

The trigger will be long, like a DA revolver, but smooth. There are parts from Galloway Precision that reduce the travel by almost 50%. Cost is around $40

I have not seen Tritium sights for the LC9, but the factory sights are dovetailed in, so there could be replacements. I just dont know for sure.

My LC9 has been perfectly reliable thru almost 900 rounds. Never any type of misfeed or eject issue what so ever. I would assume the LC380 would be just as reliable.

 

[guyfromohio]

Why not? I'd rock a Glock .380.

 

[PabloJ]

It has good sights and 'Loaded when up' "male genitalia safety lever",....... Me likes a lot.

 

[Onward Allusion]

MedWheeler

Quote:
One word...
WHY?????

If the person can't handle the recoil of the LC9, then just carry the LCP or P3AT. Heck, carry the P3AT with the OEM 9 round mag! BTW, neither the LCP or P3At has harsh recoil. Want harsh recoil? Shoot a NAA Guardian in 380!

Jeez.. sit down and take something for that, why don't you?

I already do. It doesn't work.

I'll say it again. It's a stupid idea - BUT some folks will buy it 'cause it's a Ruger brand, it's "softer" shooting, and it looks purtty. The major downside is that it has the same capacity as the LC9 - So why would anyone in their right mind get one? Yes, the recoil is harder on a full blown 9mm, but this ain't a range toy. No one is gonna shoot a few hundred rounds out of a LC9 or LC380 in an afternoon.

So, same size, weight, & capacity but with a cartridge that has almost half the energy than it's big brother. It makes no sense. Either man-up and deal with the recoil or get a LCP.

 

[JERRY]

so basically it is a same size gun as the LC9 but in .380acp right?

that will have some appeal to those folks who can only handle light recoil.

 

[Master Blaster]

The SIG P230, P232, and the Walther PPK are/were vry popular .380 pistols so why not? Obviously Ruger thinks they will sell, so more power to them.

 

[TennJed]

I already do. It doesn't work.

I'll say it again. It's a stupid idea - BUT some folks will buy it 'cause it's a Ruger brand, it's "softer" shooting, and it looks purtty. The major downside is that it has the same capacity as the LC9 - So why would anyone in their right mind get one? Yes, the recoil is harder on a full blown 9mm, but this ain't a range toy. No one is gonna shoot a few hundred rounds out of a LC9 or LC380 in an afternoon.

So, same size, weight, & capacity but with a cartridge that has almost half the energy than it's big brother. It makes no sense. Either man-up and deal with the recoil or get a LCP.

Sig, Walther, Beretta, Bersa, & Taurus will be shocked to learn Ruger fans have been keeping them in business buying their large 380s

No offense but your "man up" comment is a little misguided Why don't you man up and carry a XDS or PM45? Are people that carry a snub nose Redhawk Alaskan in 454 more of a man than you?

 

[Onward Allusion]

I'm an average size guy. 49 YO 5'10" - 180lb. I sit on my butt most of the day. I get my usual activity by walking (hell - the back parking lot to the front office is 1/4 of a mile) long distances in our facility and workout occasionally. If I can handle a few dozen 357 snub and not cry about it, there is no reason a man in relatively decent shape couldn't do the same. Hell yes 357's from a crappy Taurus 605 is snappy, but in a life or death situation you're not even going to feel it. Dropping all the way back down to the LC9 - it's snappy but it isn't anything most guys can't handle. Especially if it's a mag-ful of rounds.

My point isn't the man-up thing. My point is that it is pointless to me in having a LC380 when it shoots a much less powerful cartridge, is the same size & weight, and has the same capacity as a LC9. It doesn't add up when there's a LCP in the product-line. Just do a +1 extension on it.

I carry a KT P32 because it has 1 extra round and is lighter than the LCP or the P3AT. IMO, if one is to trade down in terms of power in a conceal carry piece, it better be for the weight, capacity, or size and not because it is softer shooting because the difference between a 9mm and a 380 is negligible, especially if one shoots low recoil personal defense rounds out of the 9mm.

If KT made the P3AT with 7+1, I'd jump on it. If it made something in 9mm the size/weight of the P3AT +an ounce or two with 7+1 or even 6+1, I'd jump on that.

BTW, if I were open carrying it would be a Glock 21SF. God Bless the man who carries a snub in 454, 'cause he probably can take more pain and is tougher than me. Only a fool would think there aren't "better" men out there than himself.

 

[Old Fuff]

There are a lot of buyers out there who are not regular shooters and are recoil sensitive. At the distances they will likely use it the .380 will more then do the job. Prior to, and during World War Two it was adopted and used as a military and police cartridge in larger guns, and Colt's .380 Pocket Model (that is much larger/heavier) is still popular today.

You can be sure Ruger didn’t go in the direction it did without making some in-depth market studies. There are often vast differences between what members of a gun forum recommend and what are generally popular with the public.

 

[Guvnor]

I think its a great idea. Never bought into that macho crap regarding calibers. Always wanted to see more midsize guns chambered in either .32 acp or .380. The fact that its a locked breech is even better...should be a perfect choice for women, older folks, and people with limited hand strength for whatever reason. Probably will have mild recoil and likely to have an easy to rack slide as well. No reason why a person's only option for a .380 should have to be a small and painful blowback gun. Bravo Ruger.

 

[weblance]

I'll say it again. It's a stupid idea.
It makes no sense.
it is pointless to me in having a LC380
So, same size, weight, & capacity but with a cartridge that has almost half the energy than it's big brother. It makes no sense. Either man-up and deal with the recoil or get a LCP.
I carry a KT P32

So, after you tell us what a terrible idea the LC380 is, and that such a man as you would never carry a ridiculous pistol like the LC380, you carry a 32 acp? BRILLIANT. Ruger certainly had no plans to market this pistol to someone like you.

 

[Onward Allusion]

weblance
So, after you tell us what a terrible idea the LC380 is, and that such a man as you would never carry a ridiculous pistol like the LC380, you carry a 32 acp? BRILLIANT. Ruger certainly had no plans to market this pistol to someone like you.

Like I'd said, it makes no sense to me and I personally would not buy one. I'm sure Ruger had no plans to market the LC380 to someone like me. I never said that folks out there should not buy one. Hell, they can buy whatever they want. It's their money and this is a free country (for now).

Did you read why I carry a P32 instead of a P3AT or LCP??? If I recall correctly, you carry one too.

weblance
Member


Join Date: September 15, 2011
Posts: 180
Ive had my P32 long enough now to make a couple comments about it. I have 2 LCPs that I dont trust because every time I take them to the range, I have a feed or eject malfunction. After a Fluff and Buff of the P32, its been perfect through 350 rounds. Im not recoil shy, but the LCP is a handfull. I am a pocket carry Person, and find the weight, size, and performance of the P32 to be perfect. I think 8 rounds of 32 FMJ will get me to safety if I would ever need it. I also like the longer 10 round, full grip magazine that is available for the P32, that the LCP doesnt have. Im happy with my P32.

I carry the P32 because it is the smallest, thinnest, lightest pistol out there that holds 7+1 round in a centerfire that's a little better than a 25ACP. BTW, I have a P3AT & a PF9 and a P11 - NONE of those have super bad recoil - TO ME. I can't imagine the LC9 being much different than the PF9 in terms of recoil - again TO ME. The PF9 stings, but is manageable and would be fine in a defensive situation. Range toy - no freakin' way! So, hence, I would never buy a LC380.

Don't make this personal if you don't agree with me. I never claimed to be 'such a man' as you have put it. In fact, I said that someone who carries a 454 snub must be tougher and can take more pain than me. Did I touch a nerve for you to get personal???

 

[Zaydok Allen]

Right............. I don't get this one either. I'll stick with my XDs.

 

[weblance]

Did I touch a nerve for you to get personal???

No, but I want to point out that because you think its stupid, pointless, and makes no sense for a pistol like this to be available, not everybody is like you.
Do you feel that because there are pistols in the LCP-P32 size, that larger pistols chambered for the same cartridges have no place in the market? The LC380 offers many advantages over the LCP. More cartridges, better sights, a real safety, last shot hold open, and a size you can actually hold on to. Its smaller, and thinner than many other 380s on the market that are popular. I see it as another good option for many people, and from comments other forum members have made, so do they.

 

[Onward Allusion]

I think there are 2 schools of thoughts on the LC380. Some folks see a niche and others are like me. I guess if I didn't already have a PF9 (or LC9), I MIGHT consider something in the same size/capacity but in a milder round.

 

[Jorg Nysgerrig]

Just too much bickering to save this one.