ddc said: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?
Weight specs are always for unloaded gun unless specifically noted otherwise.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.
The real question is why is the trigger so terrible.
skiking said: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.
How do you get 16%? I calculated 34%!
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.
__________________