Ruger LC9s vs LC9 pro

[joneb]

I looked at a Ruger LC9s and a Ruger LC9s pro, I like the idea of a thumb safety on the LC9s but I thought it was too easy to engage or disengage the safety. I also don't care for the mag disconnect on the LC9s.
I think the LC9s pro is more for me but it's a bit to Glock like in its function, I am used to 1911s and the added safeties

sorry I forgot some s'sss

 

[TruthTellers]

Don't carry a round in the chamber and you won't have to worry.

I think the Pro is a better choice, it's what Glock should have come out with 10 years ago.

 

[joneb]

Don't carry a round in the chamber and you won't have to worry.

I don't care for that option.
I mostly carry a S&W 36 snub or a 9x18 East German Makarov, I know their not high tec but I'm ok with that.
I may need to look at a single stack 9x19 in DAO ?

 

[joneb]

Oops double tap

 

[Jlr2267]

The LC9S that I tried had a VERY light trigger...for me, it was too light for a carry gun.

 

[Fatdaddy]

The LC9S that I tried had a VERY light trigger...for me, it was too light for a carry gun.

The trigger is light.
I love the Pro model but have a good holster and pay special attention when holstering.

 

[Gary A]

I have been intrigued by the LC9 (without ever buying one) and kinda hoped they would address the shortcomings of the original LC9 by eliminating the huge loaded chamber indicator and the mag safety disconnect, and shorten the trigger by adjusting the preset on the hammer in the same way they did on the LCP. the thumb safety I could take or leave. They did the first two and I really don't mind that they went to a striker system, though I tend to prefer hammer-fired, but the trigger on the LC9s Pro is, I agree, lighter than I would prefer for that type pistol. I'm not a glock guy but the G43 might be a better fit for me because the trigger is reported to be heavier than the typical Glock.

 

[Jlr2267]

I didn't care much for the G43 either, although I'm sure it's a fine carry choice. I may be biased by my current carry pistols, but I carry a Shield or Kahr CM9 in warm weather...mostly the CM9 due to its size advantage. Not a fan of Kahr, but their CM9 is a great little pistol for cc.

 

[Tallball]

I think the trigger on my "old-fashioned" LC9 is appropriate for CC, but would prefer it without the safety.

 

[TarDevil]

I think the trigger on my "old-fashioned" LC9 is appropriate for CC, but would prefer it without the safety.

+1

Original LC9, no safety is needed. LC9s is a different story. Although I will say the LC9s trigger isn't as light as my SR9c. I'd be more prone to carry the LC9 Pro than I would a version of the SR9c without a safety.

My feelings about the safety itself: I think Ruger got it about right. It has a nice tactile feel without being obtrusive, quite unlike the S&W Shield safety (which, for me, is way too subtle to manipulate in a fight).

 

[C0untZer0]

I went with the Kahr CM9.

When I was originally looking for a small nine, I did look at the original LC9 and I couldn't live with that trigger.

I think the new trigger on the LC9s is nice, but I'd already purchased my CM9 by the time they came out with the LC9s.

When I'm trying out triggers in the gun store I get into the mindset of unconsciously comparing whatever trigger I am trying out with my memory of triggers on bullseye guns and that's a mistake. I did that with my B6P.

If you can put 7 shots center of mass on a B27 at 5, 10 and 15 yards that trigger is good enough.

My opinion is that if you are at the point where you are thinking carrying with an empty chamber is a good idea then you need to re-think your handgun selection.

 

[likesguns]

I would get the pro,the safety is redundant as lc9 has a trigger safety anyways,use a holster that covers the trigger and keep your booger hook off the trigger until its being fired.
My greatest peev with my Sr9c is that damned manual safety,I wish they would make a pro Sr series.

 

[Plan2Live]

I think the trigger on my "old-fashioned" LC9 is appropriate for CC, but would prefer it without the safety.

I agree with TallBall on this one. That's the gun Ruger should have brought out as an alternative to the original LC9.

 

[46Slick]

I have the LC9s that I removed the mag disconnect(piece of cake). Don't use the safety and you have an LC9s pro. Options are good.

 

[joneb]

I found this interesting,
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p2bBSHxk-Oc

 

[TarDevil]

Don't use the safety and you have an LC9s pro. Options are good.

To each his/ her own choice, but I would never just pretend the safety doesn't exist.

I use good quality holsters and I can't count the times I've found that safety in a position other than the way I holstered it.

When shooting I practice swiping it off EVER SINGLE TIME.

 

[JohnnyBravo]

If you think you might carry it AIWB I would go with the 9S.

A wound to the femoral artery versus a grazed butt makes for a serious difference.

 

[mavracer]

I went with the Kahr CM9.

When I was originally looking for a small nine, I did look at the original LC9 and I couldn't live with that trigger.

I think the new trigger on the LC9s is nice, but I'd already purchased my CM9 by the time they came out with the LC9s.

I kinda did the same only I went the much more expensive route, I bought the LC9 sight unseen when they very first became avaliable, decided I didn't like it and sold it and got a Kahr PM9, which led to a CW45. ended up trading something else off (IIRC Colt 1903) for another LC9 and a bunch of cash and decided I wanted to see what could be doen about trigger. put a RTK kit in it and big dot nightsights and made a servicable gun. The next day( I'm exagerating) Ruger came out with the LC9s I was ok not trading since it still had the thumb safety( I mostly pocket carry for left hand) so I didn't think twice until I picked up a Pro, never let the counter guy have it back I gave dad the LC9 and sold the PM9.

Love my LC9s pro and I'm no Glock fan.

 

[cocojo]

I own an LC9s Pro and a LC9 and I have to say I like the LC9 better. True the LC9s has a better trigger but that trigger is WAY to light for defensive purposes. That pro trigger is about 4 lbs and short. The LC9 is about 6 lbs and a bit longer, a much better margin of safety. As for the frame safety I just never use it. As for the mag safety I really don't care. These guns are a hit and get out of there gun, so to me the mag safety is irrelevant. Never had a issue with the frame safety engaging on my LC9. I shoot both equally well so it really doesn't matter. The trigger on the LC9 is a whole lot lighter and shorter stroking than the trigger on my LCR38 and everybody raves about them, go figure! A 6 lb trigger is nothing, I use to shoot revolvers when they had 12 and 14 lb triggers in my early LE career.