thnking of the LC9

I have been considering of an LC9 as a carry gun to replace the Smith 642 that I have been carrying. The reason being the smaller size due primarily to it's thickness (or lack thereof).

Now I see that a new LC9 is offered that it a little bigger, and is said to have a better
trigger. Have any of you guys/gals had a chance to review the newer version?

Any thoughts on either version of the LC9 would be appreciated....thanks. 8)

Get the NEW one, LC9s. Take a look at Ruger web site.

I have one coming, should be here Mon. 8/4

I have one coming Tues. I saw several reviews on Y-T. Looked good. All the LC9 items are the same Ruger says, but the recoils system is now one piece, as I was going to order Galloway's SS rod/springs like I did for my Sig 290 RS, so Debbie at Galloway is not sure if those interchange . Galloway should have the LC9s next week

LC9s uses a different recoil guide rod system. Frankly Galloway offers nothing that appeals to me any more nor improves reliability. The diameter of the systems where they go through the slide are different sizes.

I have been trying to find an AFFORDABLE carry weapon to replace my tried and true SP101 for years! The LC9 was an easily AFFORDABLE choice over the Sig P938. But the triggers on the few that I tried plain SUCKED... In comparison to just about anything. OK I admit to being a Sig fan when it comes to semi-autos. And Glock has had a better trigger than MOST DAO or even competing striker fired guns (with the exception of a few) but I think Ruger has a clear winner here when it comes to cost vs reliability.

Sorry in advance if this sounds like LC9 bashing but I just feel Ruger did not do a good job developing the LC9.

I have both the LC9 (original) and the Shield. I bought the LC9 first.

Speaking only of the original LC9 version in this case, I prefer the Shield.

Two problems with the LC9 that bothered me was the ease with which the magazine can be pulled out of the locked position within the grip with pressure on the magazine base pad, and the fact it's blued steel as opposed to something more corrosion resistant. I found mine had developed significant red rust between barrel and slide and in the front sight dovetail after several weeks of carrying in a leather IWB in the summer heat.

The LC9 has a magazine disconnect safety which I feel has no place on a defensive handgun. The Shield does not.

To field strip the LC9 you end up with a free floating pin to keep track of and not lose. No such loose parts with the Shield.

I can shoot the Shield almost as well as I can a full size pistol. With the 8 round mag in the handle I have a full grip. I've never shot a group with the LC9 I would be willing to share with the public.

The Shield is Melonite coated stainless and not likely to exhibit any sort of corrosion even under the most adverse storage or exposure conditions.

I was hoping when Ruger re-released the LC9 they would address some of the liabilities in the original version. It does appear Ruger addressed the trigger, the "shark fin" loaded chamber indicator, and removed the completely useless internal lock, so that may improve its standing among the other offerings.

DA_TriggR4Ruger said:

. And Glock has had a better trigger than MOST DAO or even competing striker fired guns (with the exception of a few) but I think Ruger has a clear winner here when it comes to cost vs reliability.

Click to expand...

Strange, the trigger on my buddy's Glock was a huge disappointment. The SR9c had the best striker trigger of any I tried. If the new LC9s is anything like the SR9c trigger, they will have a winner in this class of weapon IMO.

my youngest son carries his LC9 (gift from dad) and loves it. I think the striker fired model just introduced would be even better. the original had a trigger similar to a double action revolver. the Ruger striker fired pistols I own have very good carry triggers. the triggers are crisp and somewhere between 5 and 6 pounds. if the new LC9s is similar it will be a big seller. maybe even me.

OK, I am convinced to buy the LC9s. Just one question: does it have double strike capability? IE, if it fails to fire, can one just pull the trigger again, or would he/she have to rack the slide. 8)

5of7 said:

OK, I am convinced to buy the LC9s. Just one question: does it have double strike capability? IE, if it fails to fire, can one just pull the trigger again, or would he/she have to rack the slide. 8)

Click to expand...

I would doubt it and frankly if the round doesn't go off proper procedure is to clear and chamber a new round. I use to think about double strike as an advantage, but practice clearing the weapon and it becomes pretty fast.

Clovishound said:

DA_TriggR4Ruger said:

. And Glock has had a better trigger than MOST DAO or even competing striker fired guns (with the exception of a few) but I think Ruger has a clear winner here when it comes to cost vs reliability.

Click to expand...

Strange, the trigger on my buddy's Glock was a huge disappointment. The SR9c had the best striker trigger of any I tried. If the new LC9s is anything like the SR9c trigger, they will have a winner in this class of weapon IMO.

Click to expand...

I agree fully, I sure hope so!

modrifle3 said:

5of7 said:

OK, I am convinced to buy the LC9s. Just one question: does it have double strike capability? IE, if it fails to fire, can one just pull the trigger again, or would he/she have to rack the slide. 8)

Click to expand...

I would doubt it and frankly if the round doesn't go off proper procedure is to clear and chamber a new round. I use to think about double strike as an advantage, but practice clearing the weapon and it becomes pretty fast.

Click to expand...

There are people who have trouble racking the slide on a semi auto handgun. This is due to a number of things which include arthritis and weakness in the hands due to old age. These same people can pull the trigger just fine, but racking takes a little time.

In any event, the LC9s is ordered and I will know by the end of the week whether or not it has double strike capability. 8)

I looked at the LC9 and LC9S parts diagrams for comparison. It looks like many parts are either interchangeable or a slight modification of the original. I especially like how the LC9S is a more simple pistol with fewer parts overall. I think I may just get one after seeing if any bugs shake out.

$349 at "Grabaguns.com" today. LC9s

Ruger Nut10 said:

$349 at "Grabaguns.com" today. LC9s

Click to expand...

No such web site.

groberts said:

Ruger Nut10 said:

$349 at "Grabaguns.com" today. LC9s

Click to expand...

No such web site.

Click to expand...

Leave the "s" off....

They have the 9e for $340!

I got the gun and a fobus holster today and went to the range and put 4 magazines through it.

I am favorably impressed. It handled my favorite 9MM load with ease and is quite easy to control and the trigger is great for a DAO handgun.

Do NOT buy the Fobus holster # KTP-11. The gun will not go fully into it at all. They say that the holsters that the regular LC9 will fit the LC9s, but it does not.

Anyone have a favorite holster for the LC9s?

I use the Bianchi 100 Professional IWB and Tagua leather paddle holster for my Kel Tec PF9, which uses the same holsters as the LC9. They work great and are comfortable.

I carry mine in the Bianchi and love it. I just shot two mags at my out door range and at 10 yards I put 14 rounds off hand in a 5" circle. I am really learning a lot shooting a DA auto.

That sweet SA shot makes you forget trigger control.