New Ruger LC9

FatAndy · Post by **FatAndy** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 15:32:33

For those who want a pocket 9MM that isn't made by Kel Tec and don't want to spring for a Kahr:

http://www.ruger.com/products/lc9/index.html

Chasbo00 · Post by **Chasbo00** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:00:28

Not a bad pocket option, but I don't think this Elsie-9 will do as well in the market as has the Elsie-Pea. It may well drive the price of Kahrs down some though.

gunderwood · Post by **gunderwood** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:07:58

I like it and I think they will sell lots of them...probably one to me at some point. I'm not sure I'd call it totally a pocket pistol. It is nearly an inch larger in length and height than a Ruger LCP (that is the size I traditionally think about) and it weights around 70% more (17oz vs 10oz). However, it is much smaller than a typical sub-compact like a G26 or similar.

I think it is a great addition to the market as long as they keep the Rugerness of it intact; low cost, but functional and dependable.

FatAndy · Post by **FatAndy** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:28:23

I think that it is a great addition as well, however, upon further analysis, I really think they should have gotten it closer to the Kel Tec PF-9, or even the Kahr PM-9, weight and dimensions. The PF-9 was definitely pocketable in traditional dress slacks with a DeSantis pocket holster, and it even worked, although somewhat uncomfortably, in snugger fitting jeans. That said, the market is ravenous for these things - this should sell like crazy, especially since the release seems to be timed with that of the Sig P290.

Chasbo00 · Post by **Chasbo00** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:34:51

Taking a closer look at its dimensions, it's a lot bigger than a Kahr PM9 and a little smaller than a Walther PPS. It may be a little too large for pocket carry. I think the Taurus 709 may be the closest to it now in size and capacity. Yet, I'm sure most would much rather have a Ruger than a Taurus. If I did not already have a Walther PPS, I might be interested in it.

gunderwood · Post by **gunderwood** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:41:35

FatAndy wrote:That said, the market is ravenous for these things - this should sell like crazy, especially since the release seems to be timed with that of the Sig P290.

The SIG P290 is another to watch. It is about a 1/2" larger than the LCP and 1/2" smaller than the LC9. Both are slightly thicker than the LCP or similar pistols, but not enough to really care IMHO. I like the DAO approach with no safety or the P290/LCP better than the LC9s manual safety approach. I think these will prove to be fantastic options for smaller framed individuals for whom a traditional sub-compact is a bit to large for CC without wearing baggy clothes.

gunderwood · Post by **gunderwood** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 17:46:21

Of course if you really want a 9mm in a LCP like package, the best game in town is the Rohrbaugh R9 Stealth. http://www.rohrbaughfirearms.com/node/9

However, they don't come cheap!

FatAndy · Post by **FatAndy** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 18:30:36

gunderwood wrote:I like the DAO approach with no safety or the P290/LCP better than the LC9s manual safety approach.

I missed that - this is obviously there to make it Massachusetts compliant.

Jakeiscrazy · Post by **Jakeiscrazy** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 19:58:54

I like the design

FatAndy wrote:gunderwood wrote:
I like the DAO approach with no safety or the P290/LCP better than the LC9s manual safety approach.

I missed that - this is obviously there to make it Massachusetts compliant.

Nope on the spec sheet "MA Approved & Certified: NO"

I like the design but I would leave the safety off. It looks hard to access.

gunderwood · Post by **gunderwood** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:45:09

Jakeiscrazy wrote:I like the design
FatAndy wrote:gunderwood wrote:
I like the DAO approach with no safety or the P290/LCP better than the LC9s manual safety approach.

I missed that - this is obviously there to make it Massachusetts compliant.
Nope on the spec sheet "MA Approved & Certified: NO"

I like the design but I would leave the safety off. It looks hard to access.

I'm not sure why they included it. I don't mind a manual safety like a 1911 where it is easy to use and natural, but a lot of these modern safeties are not...they are designed by lawyers instead.

FatAndy · Post by **FatAndy** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 20:56:03

Well, I can't imagine that MA approves and certifies guns before they start shipping - I would imagine they tend to drag their feet on these issues.

Kahr developed an external safety version of the PM-9 specifically so their own employees (Kahr's are made in MA) could own the weapons they produce. That would be the only logical reason I could think of to include an external safety on the LC9, when the LCP, didn't have one.

gunderwood · Post by **gunderwood** » Mon, 03 Jan 2011 21:02:56

FatAndy wrote:Well, I can't imagine that MA approves and certifies guns before they start shipping - I would imagine they tend to drag their feet on these issues.

Kahr developed an external safety version of the PM-9 specifically so their own employees (Kahr's are made in MA) could own the weapons they produce. That would be the only logical reason I could think of to include an external safety on the LC9, when the LCP, didn't have one.

It seems to be more of a shrunk SR9c than a 9mm LCP. The SR9c's have the same basic manual safety, but it is ambidextrous.

LFS · Post by **LFS** » Tue, 04 Jan 2011 21:49:05

gunderwood wrote:
FatAndy wrote:Well, I can't imagine that MA approves and certifies guns before they start shipping - I would imagine they tend to drag their feet on these issues.

Kahr developed an external safety version of the PM-9 specifically so their own employees (Kahr's are made in MA) could own the weapons they produce. That would be the only logical reason I could think of to include an external safety on the LC9, when the LCP, didn't have one.
It seems to be more of a shrunk SR9c than a 9mm LCP. The SR9c's have the same basic manual safety, but it is ambidextrous.

I don't see the appeal. This is a little too big for pocket carry, so why not go with something like the SR9c?

Jakeiscrazy · Post by **Jakeiscrazy** » Wed, 05 Jan 2011 00:53:42

It has melted egdes and I think it's single stack because it is only 7+1.

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

Diomed · Post by **Diomed** » Wed, 05 Jan 2011 03:05:43

Kinda big and heavy.

Mag disconnect is a dealkiller. Not a fan of LCIs, neutral on the safety for the moment.

But I suspect that if the disconnect can be dealt with and some night sights produced, I'll probably give it a try. It'll probably need some extended mag baseplates like the LCP too.

gunderwood · Post by **gunderwood** » Wed, 05 Jan 2011 07:38:13

Diomed wrote:Kinda big and heavy.

Mag disconnect is a dealkiller. Not a fan of LCIs, neutral on the safety for the moment.

But I suspect that if the disconnect can be dealt with and some night sights produced, I'll probably give it a try. It'll probably need some extended mag baseplates like the LCP too.

I hadn't noticed the mag disconnect before. That and the stupid chamber indicator are the only two things I hate about the Mark III I have. I guess I won't be buying one then unless it can be easily removed/modified.

FatAndy · Post by **FatAndy** » Wed, 05 Jan 2011 08:23:01

I just bought a new Mark III that I am turning into a bit of a project. I found these options for removing the offending "features".

For the LCI, a guy on Rimfire Central fabricates filler pieces in the two factory finishes:

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/sh ... 19&page=34

The mag disconnect is a little more involved, and Rimfire Central is the best resource for tips, but basically you need to install a a custom hammer bushing. Apparently, installing the Clark bushing makes the trigger a little better, and allows the mags to drop free, which is my primary motivation:

http://www.clarkcustomguns.com/22pts.htm#ruger

Jakeiscrazy · Post by **Jakeiscrazy** » Wed, 05 Jan 2011 13:09:18

Here is the gun in action! Gun Blast always gets things first.

meak99 · Post by **meak99** » Wed, 05 Jan 2011 13:46:30

FatAndy wrote:I just bought a new Mark III that I am turning into a bit of a project. I found these options for removing the offending "features".

For the LCI, a guy on Rimfire Central fabricates filler pieces in the two factory finishes:

http://www.rimfirecentral.com/forums/sh ... 19&page=34

The mag disconnect is a little more involved, and Rimfire Central is the best resource for tips, but basically you need to install a a custom hammer bushing. Apparently, installing the Clark bushing makes the trigger a little better, and allows the mags to drop free, which is my primary motivation:

http://www.clarkcustomguns.com/22pts.htm#ruger

I have a MkIII 22/45 on the way, and was reading baout the mag disconnect mod just a few minutes ago. You can install the Volquartsen MkII Trigger Job and VQ MkII Hammer Bushing in the MkIII to take care of the dicsonnect. I am sure there are a few additional details I am leaving out, and the VQ kit is ~$100... much more than just the custom bushing. Is it bad that I am already planning mods and trigger work on a gun I son't even have in my hands yet?

ShortMan · Post by **ShortMan** » Wed, 05 Jan 2011 14:47:37

I just saw the LC9 when I was browsing Rugers site. Looks nice but according to their own pics its definitely bigger than the LCP. I have small hands and since I wear small jeans that also means little pockets. Wont be putting this one in my pocket from the looks of it.
Shame, its otherwise a nice gun.

Virginia Gun Owners Forum - VGOF

New Ruger LC9

New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9

Re: New Ruger LC9