Why is the LC9 so big?
- Thread starter Skribs
- Start date
- Status
Captains1911
Member
Since when did the LC9 become a "pocket gun?" I don't think that was the design intent and therefore it makes no sense to compare it to the LCP.
Walt Sherrill
Member
The LC9 is larger in some ways, but it also holds 1 more round than a number of the "smaller" guns.
You seem to be straining at a gnat...
Having owned and shot a number of these guns, and having pocket-carried a couple of them, I would suggest that the dimensional differences between them are essentially trivial (except the P11, which, to my thinking is NOT a pocket gun).
Pocket carry is a type of carry that seems better as an IDEA than as something that really works all that well... (Getting a gun out of an IWB holster can be a challenge when sitting or in a car, but not nearly as much of a challenge as doing the same with a gun you have in your pants pocket. (Coat pockets aren't as much an issue, but in the summer....)
.
You seem to be straining at a gnat...
Having owned and shot a number of these guns, and having pocket-carried a couple of them, I would suggest that the dimensional differences between them are essentially trivial (except the P11, which, to my thinking is NOT a pocket gun).
Pocket carry is a type of carry that seems better as an IDEA than as something that really works all that well... (Getting a gun out of an IWB holster can be a challenge when sitting or in a car, but not nearly as much of a challenge as doing the same with a gun you have in your pants pocket. (Coat pockets aren't as much an issue, but in the summer....)
.
Last edited:
If the LC9 was based upon the PF9 then the dimensional differences don't have to be the same but they are close.
However CountZero's data indicates a significant weight difference: PF9 12.7 oz vs LC9 17.01 oz.
Why would it be so much heavier? That's a 16% increase?
However CountZero's data indicates a significant weight difference: PF9 12.7 oz vs LC9 17.01 oz.
Why would it be so much heavier? That's a 16% increase?
primalmu
Member
How do you get 16%? I calculated 34%!
The Lone Haranguer
Member
If the LC9 were made as small as the LCP, it would hurt on both ends. The Kahr PM9 I had flayed the skin off my trigger finger.
What they need to do with the LC9 is give it the new style, shorter stroke LCP trigger.
What they need to do with the LC9 is give it the new style, shorter stroke LCP trigger.
Walt Sherrill
Member
ddc said:
The weight of those two guns is a LOT different. I can't tell, from looking at the manufacturer's data, whether the LC9 weight includes a loaded mag, and assume it doesn't. If they were both "loaded" weights, that would make them closer. The Kel-Tec data shows both empty and loaded.
If the weight is THAT different (and not saying it isn't), that may explain why some folks feel the LC9 is softer shooting than the PF-9...
I just looked at the Kahr CM9 on the Kahr website, and it's 2 ounces heavier than the Kel-Tec, empty, but 1 ounce lighter than the LC9, empty, and to me, it's the softest shooting (least noticeable recoil) of the three.
Captains1911
Member
Weight specs are always for unloaded gun unless specifically noted otherwise.
It's a a Ruger. When have they ever had a nice trigger?
If the LC9 was similar size to the LCP I wouldn't ever consider buying one, it would be too small. I played with a friends LC9 last week and it is a small gun. I like how small it is and how easy it is to conceal, but don't like how small it feels in my hand.
Walt Sherrill
Member
skiking said:
I've seen a couple of reviews of the new LC380, which is basically the LC9 with the (.380) LCP top-end. That slightly larger and heavier frame apparently makes the .380 round much easier to shoot well. It may be that the LC9 frame is about as small as one needs to go.
(I know there are smaller guns, and I've shot some of them -- I haven't shot all of them well, and certainly didn't ENJOY shooting most of them. I'm giving serious thought to an LC380...)
Because I have a cheap calculator that isn't smart enough to double check that I entered the correct data. LOL...
You are correct sir. Thanks!
IMHO small reaches a point of not only diminishing returns but of actually being an impediment to shooting and running the gun well. The lc9, P/CW/k 9, walthers pps, S&W shield, are about as small as you get without crossing the line of the small size being an impediment. A cw9 or PM 9 is as small as I'd ever personally care to go and is more of a BUG or deep cover gun than a true primary carry gun.
Being really small and chambered in 9x19 is a neat engineering feat. However, small is not always the sumnum bonum in a carry gun. A gun the size of a pps or shield really is not hard to hide with a proper carry set up and shoots worlds better than an R9 for example. A little time spent shooting for a shot timer, jettisoning the "combat effective/accurate" excuse for misses, and some good drills is pretty enlightening when it comes to the smallest of guns.
Being really small and chambered in 9x19 is a neat engineering feat. However, small is not always the sumnum bonum in a carry gun. A gun the size of a pps or shield really is not hard to hide with a proper carry set up and shoots worlds better than an R9 for example. A little time spent shooting for a shot timer, jettisoning the "combat effective/accurate" excuse for misses, and some good drills is pretty enlightening when it comes to the smallest of guns.
My issue is that I've never seen a proper way to pocket carry, at any size. I don't wear carpenter jeans or other excessively baggy pants. Neither a j frame nor an LCP were usable in a pocket for me. If it did fit in the pocket, it by Ohio law must be in a holster. I agree with that as I wouldn't feel safe with an exposed trigger (long DAO pull or not). In a pocket holster, it would fit, but I couldn't draw to save my life. I also had difficulty fitting everything else (phone, keys, small pocket knife, change, etc) in the other pocket. When timed, I was far faster drawing from an IWB holster.
With that in mind, the absolute smallest pistol simply offered minimal benefit relative to its drawbacks. Having something a little heftier and larger made shooting easier and didnt change the ability to carry IWB by any noticeable amount. While a pistol carried is better than one left at home, I don't see a slightly larger option being realistically harder to carry and I do see it being far easier to shoot. 9x19 isn't pleasant to shoot in most micro pistols. I wouldn't be interested in a pistol that was significantly smaller than the LC9.
With that in mind, the absolute smallest pistol simply offered minimal benefit relative to its drawbacks. Having something a little heftier and larger made shooting easier and didnt change the ability to carry IWB by any noticeable amount. While a pistol carried is better than one left at home, I don't see a slightly larger option being realistically harder to carry and I do see it being far easier to shoot. 9x19 isn't pleasant to shoot in most micro pistols. I wouldn't be interested in a pistol that was significantly smaller than the LC9.
benzy if you can't draw a gun like my LCP from your front pocket you are using the wrong holster or your pants are way to tight.
A a J frame because of it's better grip is even easier.
My problem with pocket carrying J frames is the over all length that causes them to peek out of my pocket.
As far as draw timing I think that is over rated more times that not.
A a J frame because of it's better grip is even easier.
My problem with pocket carrying J frames is the over all length that causes them to peek out of my pocket.
As far as draw timing I think that is over rated more times that not.
I've tried different pocket holsters and none work to my satisfaction. My pants are far from tight pants but they aren't baggy enough for comfortable pocket carry. I blame a slim waist, muscular thighs, and a desire to not wear baggy pant. IWB works wonderfully and will be my option.
I've never been a fan of the concept of dressing around the gun. While I'll make some changes to carry, I'm not willing to change enough to be comfortable with a pocket pistol. I'll stick with IWB and all the benefits it allows, including pistols that are much better sized to handle hot defense loads rather than dress around a .380 pistol.
I've never been a fan of the concept of dressing around the gun. While I'll make some changes to carry, I'm not willing to change enough to be comfortable with a pocket pistol. I'll stick with IWB and all the benefits it allows, including pistols that are much better sized to handle hot defense loads rather than dress around a .380 pistol.
It seems the OPs logic is that for some reason the LC9 was ordained by the gun gods to be the smallest 9mm ever made yet somehow it failed. I'm not sure where that logic is coming from nor does smallest=best. If you want the smallest, its your money go buy it. I don't know how whining about the size of the LC9 benefits anyone in any way.
Lucky Derby
Member
I remember when Glock introduced the G26/27. Everyone thought they were tiny for a 9mm, much less a .40
I used to have a Colt Mustang PlusII. As far as I know the slightly smaller Mustang was the smallest .380 around at the time.
My how times have changed.
I used to have a Colt Mustang PlusII. As far as I know the slightly smaller Mustang was the smallest .380 around at the time.
My how times have changed.
Just looking at te stats can be a bit deceptive. The LC9 has sort of a rounded, melted as some call it design. Some of the other guns mentioned although shorter or whatever are blockier. I find my LC9 quite easly and comfortable to conceal and carry. But variety is a god thing. if the LC9 doesn't work for you their are lots of other options out there to choose from. One size does not fit all.
Let me respond to my own statement by stating I should rephrase "whining" to mean "complaining". I don't think the OP was whining I'm simply saying that arguing whether or not the LC9 is the "smallest" seems a little off when I don't think Ruger ever made the claim that it was the smallest nor is the smallest 9mm what everyone is looking for. Personally I find my BG380 to be the largest pistol I would care to pocket carry. Even if a 9mm was that small it would be much harder to shoot well from such a small package. On the belt the BG just feels unnecessarily small and a larger weapon of a more substantial caliber is more appropriate. The LC9 and similar pistols are really good in that role. As a IWB carry weapon its a pretty useful size. Small enough to conceal easily yet large to shoot well. I assume they sell a ton of them so they must be doing something right.
aarondhgraham
Member
LC9 vs Bersa thunder 380,,,
Imagine my surprise when I laid the pistols side by side,,,
The LC9 is smaller than my beloved Bersa.
It's still not what I would call a pocket pistol,,,
But it is smaller than some think.
Aarond
.
Imagine my surprise when I laid the pistols side by side,,,
The LC9 is smaller than my beloved Bersa.
It's still not what I would call a pocket pistol,,,
But it is smaller than some think.
Aarond
.
jimbo555
Member
With the flat mag base installed the lc9 is less than 4.5 inches high and mine measures slightly less than the 6.0 inches long. The lc9 is smaller than the shield and walther pps, also 7 round magazine pistols.
- Status
