RugerForum.com

I read where some Ruger Factory Reps. are saying they are introducing a striker fired LC9 at the 2014 SHOT Show. Anyone confirm this?

I have no inside information, but I have read the same thing.

_________________
"When we've been there ten thousand years bright shining as the sun, we've no less days to sing God's praise than when we first begun."

http://www.numberofabortions.com/

Why ruin an perfectly good gun?

That's what many/most of us wanted in the first place. If they do come out with one I'll be happy to examine it at the shop but it would have to be one heckuva pistol to replace my Kahr CW9 and Kel-Tec PF9.

_________________
"It ain't who shoots first and it ain't who shoots most; it's who HITS first. A corollary - the sooner you kill that SOB, the sooner he'll quit shooting at you. The ability to hit what you're shooting at trumps all others, and hanging 47 accessories from a cheese-grater forearm and having a 30 round magazine won't help that - practice will." -Rugerforum.com member WWB

I've read the same thing on three different forums. A few months ago, Ruger applied for trademarks for LC9S and LC9XT (among a number of others). The LC9S could be the striker-fired version if the rumors are true.

The new LC9 S

The S is for LC9 Sacagawea, It will be gold plated.

_________________
NRA Life Member
Tonkin Gulf Yacht Club member 72-75
Don't take life too seriously, No one makes it out alive
anyway.

Of course, if I'd only waited a little longer...

I would give it a hard look for sure. I checked out the LC9 before I bought my Kel-Tec PF9. I thought it had a good feel and looked less chintzy than the PF9. Still, it had a super long trigger pull, unnecessary manual safety, and cost about $80.00 more. At the time alot of folks were reporting problems with the LC and I figured that if the PF9 was as good as my little P32 I would be satisfied so the PF9 came home with me. I shoot the PF9 quite well but would much prefer a striker fire system.

_________________
"It ain't who shoots first and it ain't who shoots most; it's who HITS first. A corollary - the sooner you kill that SOB, the sooner he'll quit shooting at you. The ability to hit what you're shooting at trumps all others, and hanging 47 accessories from a cheese-grater forearm and having a 30 round magazine won't help that - practice will." -Rugerforum.com member WWB

Seems to me the trigger pull is the main reason folks don't like the LC9. I know I'm looking toward buying an S&W Shield in 9mm for my next gun purchase. If Ruger makes the LC9 in a striker-fired variant and it has a decent trigger pull, I'd be looking seriously at it as well. I'll have to wait and see, hopefully the announcement comes out before I'm ready to get the Shield.

_________________
"If life was water, I was dry as Tucson dirt". Newsboys, "Joy"
"If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.
He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said,
'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water'"
-- Jesus Christ, John 7:37-38 NASB

I examined the Shield too and felt rather non-plused by it. The Shield felt alot bigger than it actually is, almost like S&W took the M&P compact and flattened it like a pancake. The small 9mm I'm most impressed by, at least in terms of size and ergonomics, is the Springfield XDS. More than any other pistol I've encountered the XDS seems to be a true micro size version of the original. Of course, the jury is still out on whether the XDS will overcome the recall stigma and prove to be a good gun over the long haul.

_________________
"It ain't who shoots first and it ain't who shoots most; it's who HITS first. A corollary - the sooner you kill that SOB, the sooner he'll quit shooting at you. The ability to hit what you're shooting at trumps all others, and hanging 47 accessories from a cheese-grater forearm and having a 30 round magazine won't help that - practice will." -Rugerforum.com member WWB

I think the XDS is a nice gun but a little heavy for its size. It is also more $$$ than the shield or LC9. I would be happy with any of the three for a smaller CCW 9mm.

_________________
"If life was water, I was dry as Tucson dirt". Newsboys, "Joy"
"If any man is thirsty, let him come to Me and drink.
He who believes in Me, as the Scripture said,
'From his innermost being shall flow rivers of living water'"
-- Jesus Christ, John 7:37-38 NASB

A striker fired LC9 would not be a "variant". Internally it would be a completely different firearm.

I agree. My PM9, CW9, are the best I have owned. I sold my LC9 because of the trigger, and with the Galloway fix it was unreliable. A striker fired LC9 I would buy for the features not on the Kahrs.
Roger

I hope they do come out with another Model of the LC-9 The price would drop on the current one and I'd get Me 2 of them..

I'm still wondering why Ruger didn't just create a thin, single stack SR9 to begin with. I would think there would be less R&D needed and the new gun would add to an already very popular product line. I have an SR9 and its a great pistol although still a bit large and heavy for CCW so in 2012 I decided to get a smaller 9mm for carry. I did examine the LC9 and just didn't feel it possessed the same quality or value that my SR9c has. I went with the PF-9 and am very happy with it. it suits me better than the LC9 would have and is almost $100.00 less. Maybe the LC9s will change my mind, who knows.

_________________
"It ain't who shoots first and it ain't who shoots most; it's who HITS first. A corollary - the sooner you kill that SOB, the sooner he'll quit shooting at you. The ability to hit what you're shooting at trumps all others, and hanging 47 accessories from a cheese-grater forearm and having a 30 round magazine won't help that - practice will." -Rugerforum.com member WWB