Quantcast
  1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

Why is the LC9 so big?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Autoloaders' started by Skribs, Feb 26, 2014.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    When I first heard about the LC9, I assumed it would be bigger than the LCP. I thought it would a tiny bit bigger, anyway. I didn't anticipate it being the behemoth that it is, at least in comparison to the LCP. To give you an idea of what I'm talking about, let's look at some other handguns...

    The Kel-Tec P3-AT is 0.1" longer, 0.02" wider, the same height, and 1.7 oz heavier than the P-32.

    The Sig P938 is 0.4" longer, same width and height, and 0.8 oz heavier than the Sig P238.

    The Ruger LC9 is 0.84" longer, 0.9" taller, 0.08" wider, and 7.7 oz heavier than the LCP.

    The LCP is one of the smallest .380 autos on the market. However, look at the LC9 compared to other pocket 9s:
    0.1" longer, 0.6" taller, and 0.2" thinner than the Sig P938
    0.8" longer and 0.8" taller than Rorbaugh R9 Stealth
    0.15" longer, 0.2" taller, and 0.02" wider than Kel-Tec PF9
    0.4" longer, 0.2" taller, and 0.2" thinner than Kahr

    I understand that it needs to be a little bit longer and heftier to handle the 9mm round instead of the .380 ACP. However, does it really need to be as big as it is?
     
  2. primalmu

    primalmu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    I never thought I'd hear anyone complain that the LC9 was TOO big...
     
  3. velojym

    velojym Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    617
    Uhm... I carried one for about a year, and it seemed just about right for the caliber. Disappeared in an IWB holster, and was *just* big enough that I could get a decent grip on it. I'd say they did a fine job of it. Heck, I'd still have it except that I got the hots for the XDS.
     
  4. pretzelxx

    pretzelxx Member

    Joined:
    Feb 6, 2014
    Messages:
    79
    Wife has one, doesn't carry it yet, but she works at a school, preschool at that. I love the tiny little thing, fits snug in my hands and isn't too big for hers, she just hates the da pull cause she seems to think it makes her a bad shot. A 6 in group at 15 yds or so isn't the worst I've seen. She's shot about 300 rounds in her life.

    But, I suppose when you compare it, on paper its pretty big.
     
  5. crazysccrmd

    crazysccrmd Member

    Joined:
    Mar 7, 2011
    Messages:
    791
    Location:
    AK
    The LC9 has those dimensions because they are almost the same as the Keltec PF9 they blatantly ripped off the design from. Kinda like how the LCP is almost the exact same dimensions as the P3AT...strange.
     
  6. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    Ruger may have ripped off Kel-Tec on the LCP, but IMO they made it tougher . I've had LGS gunsmiths tell me they see more Rugers go out the door and more Kel-Tecs come in for repairs. Maybe Ruger should make a LC32 so I don't need to get a Kel-Tec...

    Regarding (LC9 vs. PF9) vs (LCP vs P-3AT), I think the LCP is closer in size and design to the P-3AT than the LC9 is to the PF9.
     
  7. bluekouki86

    bluekouki86 Member

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    236
    I don't feels its big for what it is. My wife has one that fits her perfectly.

    The real question is why is the trigger so terrible.
     
  8. Old Dog

    Old Dog Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2004
    Messages:
    4,487
    Location:
    somewhere on Puget Sound
    "The behemoth that it is ..." Wow. You really think it's too big for what it is? It's a freakin' tiny pistol.
    Apparently, you don't remember the "old days" when the smallest 9mm pistol around was ... something like a S&W 3913. Anyway, any smaller, in polymer frame, it'd be ridiculous to shoot. As it is, this pistol (and I have a couple of 'em) is too small for me ... If I want to downsize in 9mm, I'll segue from a SIG 226 to a SIG 228 ...
     
  9. jolly roger

    jolly roger Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Messages:
    222
    Location:
    Virginia
    After Recall Springfield XDS Trigger Quality..Lack of

    Almost bought a Springfield XDS 45 before the recall. Seemed to me at the time the trigger was pretty good. Then the recall came. Today I picked up one that has been "fixed" with the added pin. The trigger on it was the most atrocious thing I have felt. Anyone else discovered this after the recall? Think I might pass on this one...
     
  10. jolly roger

    jolly roger Member

    Joined:
    May 3, 2003
    Messages:
    222
    Location:
    Virginia
    Sorry for the post...will re-send..
     
  11. heeler

    heeler Member

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2007
    Messages:
    2,619
    I consider my PM9 about as small and light as a 9mm should realistically be.
    Mine can be snappy with plus P ammo but still controllable.
    Any lighter and it would be a handful with me.
    I think Ruger intentionally built it slightly bigger and a bit heavier for general ergonomics and shootability for the over all public.
    If pocket carrying is what one wants it can work but the overall length just like a lot of J frame style revolvers starts pushing the limits on a lot of pants pocket depths.
    I have found the six inch lenth to be the cutoff point for pocket carry.
    If it didn't have such a bad trigger and that over sized chamber indicator I would'nt mind owning one.
     
  12. JWH321

    JWH321 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2014
    Messages:
    345
    Location:
    Central Florida
    It had to be big enough for that trigger pull (think its about 12 inches or so).:uhoh:
     
  13. Captains1911

    Captains1911 Member

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2008
    Messages:
    1,265
    Location:
    Loudoun County, VA
    It's actually on the small end for guns in its "class." Comparing it to a true pocket-sized .380 is not very practical. I have a hard enough time holding onto the LC9 as it is, if it were any smaller or lighter I would not want anything to do with it.
     
  14. Wishoot

    Wishoot Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,311
    Location:
    Milwaukee, WI
    Perhaps you meant to ask "Why is it bigger than it needs to be"?

    My thought is that it's plenty small for a single stack 9. But adding the safety's and LCI add bulk and weight. Not much, but some.

    Frankly, given the heavy trigger pull, the safety is unnecessary IMO. The LCI isn't necessary because every gun should be treated as if it were loaded at all times.

    Getting rid of these features may reduce a bit of bulk and weight.
     
  15. Mitlov

    Mitlov Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    500
    I think it was designed for people who may have thought that guns like the Sig P938 didn't have enough grip or enough recoil-absorbing mass for their personal tastes, but still wanted a relatively small conceal-carry gun. Someone who might only be able to get one-and-a-half fingers on a Sig 938 might be able to get a solid two-finger grip on an LC9; that sort of thing. Different strokes for different folks.
     
  16. burk

    burk Member

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2005
    Messages:
    414
    If the LC9 is a "Behemoth", I wonder what the OP thinks of the Glock 21?:D

    I find it the perfect size for a casual carry gun. If I'm carrying all day I holster a 1911 Commander. Most of the smaller guns are hard to get a good grip on, and consequently hard to shoot as comfortably or effectively. I get more complaints about both the LC9 and the LCP being to small (especially the LCP) than the other way around.
     
  17. aarondhgraham

    aarondhgraham Member

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2012
    Messages:
    1,512
    Location:
    Stillwater, Oklahoma
    Now I hafta take another comparison picture,,,

    Now I hafta take another comparison picture.

    I've only had mine for a short while,,,
    And I've only been to the range with it twice,,,
    But it doesn't seem to be any bigger than my Bersa Thunder 380.

    I'll take a comparison picture tonight,,,
    It didn't impress me as being a big gun at all.

    Aarond

    .
     
  18. gbeecher

    gbeecher Member

    Joined:
    May 31, 2012
    Messages:
    197
    Location:
    minnesota
    How times have changed!..

    Big?! I have a Mosin-Nagant rifle - try THAT sometime! (actually I find it comfortable to shoot) The Colt 'Pocket' Hammerless of 1903 is 6.75 inches long and weighs 24 ounces. My Hi-Point C9 (C for 'compact') is 6.75 inches long, 5 inches high, 1.5 inches width and weighs 29 ounces. To me, it is relatively compact. The laws of physics determine that there is no free lunch however. Watch people shoot the Diamondback DB9 sometime.. ;)
     
  19. C0untZer0

    C0untZer0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,799
    Location:
    Illinois
    I went with the R9 because I wanted the smallest 9mm I could get. I think it has the smallest over all foot print of any pocket nine. The Boberg XR9-S (Shorty) is slightly shorter as far as OAL, but it is also a taller pistol and weighs more - 17.5 oz

    I wanted a pocket nine, so the LC9 didn't really appeal to me, and when I got to try the trigger, that ended any further consideration of getting one.
     
  20. C0untZer0

    C0untZer0 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 7, 2010
    Messages:
    3,799
    Location:
    Illinois
    The LC9 (listed last) is larger than all these other pistols:

    Rohrbaugh R9
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 2.9 in
    Length: 5.2 in
    Height: 3.7 in
    Slide Width: .82 in
    Width at thickest part of pistol: .95 in
    Weight: 13.5 oz, magazine 1.6 oz
    Capacity: 6+1 Rounds

    Boberg XR9-S (Shorty)
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 3.35 in
    Length: 5.1 in
    Height: 4.2 in
    Width: .96 in
    Weight: 17.5 oz
    Capacity: 7+1 Rounds

    Kahr MK9
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 3.0 in
    Length: 5.3 in
    Height: 4.0 in
    Slide Width: .90 in
    Width at slide stop: 1.0 in
    Weight: Pistol 22.1 oz, Magazine 1.9 oz
    Capacity: 6+1

    Kahr PM9 / CM9
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 3.1 in
    Length: 5.42 in
    Height: 4.0 in
    Slide Width: .90 in
    Width at slide stop: 1.0 in
    Weight: Pistol 14 oz, Magazine 1.9 oz
    Capacity: 6+1

    Kimber Solo
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 2.7 in
    Length: 5.5 in
    Height: 3.9 in
    Width: 1.2 in
    Weight: 17 oz
    Capacity: 6+1 Rounds

    SIG SAUER P290
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 2.9 in
    Length: 5.5 in
    Height: 3.9 in
    Width: 0.9 in - 1.1" w/slide catch (roughly the same width as MK9, Kahr lists the width of the slide only)
    Weight: 20.5 oz w/magazine
    Capacity: 6+1

    Diamondback DB9
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 3.0 in
    Length: 5.60 in
    Height: 4.0 in
    Width: 0.80 in
    Weight: 11 oz
    Capacity: 6+1 Rounds

    Kel Tec PF-11
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 3.1 in
    Length: 5.6 in
    Height: 4.3 in
    Width: 1.0 in
    Weight: 14 oz
    Capacity: 10+1 Rounds

    Beretta Nano
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 3.07 in
    Length: 5.63 in
    Height: 4.17 in
    Width: .90 in
    Weight: 17.67 oz
    Capacity: 6+1

    SCCY CPX-2
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 3.1 in
    Length: 5.7 in
    Height: 4.0 in (without mag extensions)
    Width: 1.0 in
    Weight: 15.0 oz
    Capacity: 10+1 Rounds

    Kel Tec PF-9
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 3.1 in
    Length: 5.87 in
    Height: 4.3 in
    Width: .88 in
    Weight: 12.7 oz
    Capacity: 7+1 Rounds

    SIG SAUER P938
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 3.0 in
    Length: 5.9 in
    Height: 3.9 in (not counting magazine w/extension)
    Width: 1.1 in
    Weight: 16.0 oz
    Capacity: 6+1 Rounds

    Ruger LC9
    Caliber: 9mm
    Barrel: 3.12 in
    Length: 6.0 in
    Height: 4.5 in
    Slide Width: .90in
    Weight: 17.10 oz
    Capacity: 7+1
     
  21. Mitlov

    Mitlov Member

    Joined:
    May 14, 2013
    Messages:
    500
    It's bigger than a dozen other 9mm models and smaller than several dozen 9mm models. Not everyone can be "the smallest," particularly when some buyers find "the smallest" too small. The market needs a variety of sizes to meet the preferences of a variety of customers, and the LC9 is part of that variety.
     
  22. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    My point about the size is this:
    Compare LCP to other .380s, and only one or two are smaller. Compare LC9 to other pocket 9s, and it's thinner, but otherwise bigger.
    Or, compare other pocket 380s to their 9 counterpart, and they're similar. The LC9 is much bigger than the LCP.

    So no matter how you compare the relationships, the LC9 should be closer in size to the LCP IMHO.
     
  23. primalmu

    primalmu Member

    Joined:
    Jul 31, 2012
    Messages:
    944
    Location:
    Tucson, AZ
    The LCP is not an LC9, so it is pointless to compare the two. As the saying goes, opinions are like <deleted>, everyone has one and they all stink. Does it NEED to be as big as it is? Maybe not. Do larger pistols need to be bigger than the LC9? Again, no. It is what it is (and personally, I think its the perfect size for a 9mm carry piece). This thread is nothing more than a "boo hoo, I don't like the LC9" thread as far as I'm concerned. Maybe I'll start a thread asking why the Rohrbaugh R9 is so dang small, or why its so dang ugly, or why its so dang expensive (no way I'd pay over a grand for a freakin' pocket 9).

    EDIT: By the way, this is the first time I have EVER been censored for censoring my own post. Apparently asterisks are considered vulgar now.
     
    Last edited: Mar 1, 2014
  24. Skribs

    Skribs Member

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2010
    Messages:
    5,807
    Location:
    Lakewood, Washington
    Saying the LCP is not like the LC9 is like saying the SR9 is not the SR45. I realize there's going to be some difference, but the name LC9 on a ruger pocket auto following the LCP suggests it's in the same lineup as the LCP.
     
  25. velojym

    velojym Member

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2006
    Messages:
    617
    Jolly, some have claimed the XDS trigger was improved by the fix, but I haven't really noticed the difference since I got mine back. I like the eminently concealable piece that'll hold (with the extended mag) 7+1 full .45acp rounds, and on the 20 yd plates, I could smack 'em down with authority all day. I don't guess I'd call it a match trigger, but it suits me just fine.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page