New LC9s

OldePhart · Feb 14, 2015

All good points MountainWalker but in fairness I do think it should be pointed out that it's not the length of travel that is the big problem with the LC9, at least not for some of us. I cut my teeth on double-action revolvers and still love them even though I ended up shooting Glocks for action games. But, the LC9 was a clear non-starter for me because by the time the hammer drops my finger is at an unnatural angle because of the short distance between the back strap and the trigger when it trips. People with different shaped hands (or younger, more limber, hands) might have no problem at all, but for me I couldn't avoid pulling the gun to the side in that last fraction of travel no matter how slowly and carefully I dry fired it. I think it's a combination of the short, narrow grip, the trigger well rearward, and the long travel that makes the hammer-trip point on the LC9 a problem for some people.

I do agree that on such a small striker gun a manual safety is good, though. Not essential, but good. I would have bought the LC9s and removed the magazine disconnect even if the Pro had come out before I bought mine. Especially since I ride a motorcycle.

OldePhart · Feb 14, 2015

Jim Luke said:
I intended to buy the LC9s for my daughter, provided she liked it, for her carry gun when she turns 21 in Oct. However, I am rethinking that after reading a few reports of some of the guns having issues after about 500rds...I will just have to give it a little longer to see where this goes on these guns. I would like to go ahead and get here gun so that she will have time to get competent with it...might have to go ahead and get her a Shield...IDK.

I'm kind of wishing I'd bought the Shield. The LC9s fit my hand better and I'm just real gun-shy of S&W semi-autos after a horrible experience with a DA/SA twenty-some years ago. However, I've never had the kind of reliability problems that I have with this LC9s - and pretty much from the get go. After I polished the washboard they put in place of a feed ramp I thought it was pretty reliable...but not so much after shooting it in a couple of IDPA BUG matches. It's either very, very sensitive to limp-wristing, doesn't like to shoot on an angle, or becomes very sensitive to either angle or limp-wristing after it gets a little dirty. Unfortunately, I haven't had a chance to get to the range on a slow day to figure out which of those things. In any case, for me, at least, it is a jam-o-matic when fired under any conditions more stressful than standing at a firing line and shooting stiff-armed slow fire. Certainly not what I want in a CCW.

Oh, and the jams are the worst sort - instead of a nice clean stove pipe that you can sweep away and rap the back of the slide - every single failure (and there have been several) has been an empty shell horizontal on top of the round being fed. Very time consuming to clear and you pretty much have to remove the magazine. Pulling the slide back and inverting the gun doesn't seem to work well.

Oh, BTW, I wasn't there but I'm told that one of the IDPA masters in our club has brought his Shield and outscored some pretty good shooters that were using Glock 34s.

blume357 · Feb 15, 2015

I think OldePhart has hit on something.... if you are putting 30 or 50 rounds through a pistol of any type..... unless you are very disciplined ... a limp wrist can happen.... the smaller the pistol the more likely this is to happen (at least, that's how I understand the physics)

I'm still trying to figure out how having a stove pipe every 3-500 rounds in a pistol designed for concealed carry is a real concern. If you get in a fire fight where you need that many rounds... well you should have brought a rifle with you and a bunch of friends.

OldePhart · Feb 15, 2015

@blume357 - the problem it's not a stove pipe every 3-500 rounds - it's a horizontal FTE three times in ten or twelve rounds, in some cases. And while I suspect that limp-wristing may be part of the cause the point remains that I can fire guns with much heavier perceived recoil through exactly the same kinds of scenarios with no issues at all. I've shot my Glock 22 with stiff recoiling factory loads through the same kinds of stages, in some cases firing weak hand only and having the gun bounce all over the place, and I have simply never, ever, had any kind of malfunction doing so.

The bottom line is I'm still carrying the LC9s for now, for the simple reason that I don't have anything else that I can conceal. But, I plan to really reevaluate my CCW choice using these steps:
1) A good long day at the range trying to make the LC9s fail and seeing exactly what the cause is. If I can duplicate what I'm seeing at matches and do so with fewer than 20 rounds or so after cleaning then the LC9s is definitely out as my CCW.
2) Assuming that the LC9s has to go, I'm going to try to rent a Shield and a Glock 26 and put them through the same paces. Depending on the results I will either:
2a) Buy a Shield or Glock 26 for carry or
2b) Buy a small revolver for carry (if I have similar issues with the other small autos)

The bottom line is I don't want to unfairly give the LC9s a bad reputation, but I'm not the only one that has been having the same kinds of issues AND at least some of us who have the same issues are long-time shooters who probably have less tendency to limp-wrist under stress than your average person who buys and carries this pistol.

Again...I can't stress enough...I really love this pistol...except for the fact that I've lost faith in its reliability in a real life-or-death situation...

blume357 · Feb 15, 2015

I wish I had taken some time on Friday to put more ammo through mine.... I've only run one mag through it... but it shot perfect and was damn accurate..... I'm still going to take it with me tomorrow on a road trip to Lancaster PA.... weather wise this could be interesting....

The interesting part about limp wristing.... I have a couple of P95 that I can't make jam.... then my sister in law fired it one time and it failed to eject.... I actually saw the limp wristing do this. I shot a friends Glock 19 and he had to show me how to hold it to keep it from jamming.

AnnaCatherine · Feb 15, 2015

I too just got my new LC9S. I love it. Very comfortable to wear concealed. I only have about 300 rounds through it right now, but it's cool!

MountainWalker · Feb 15, 2015

Perhaps this idea may help. I have shot up 8 boxes of FMJ and several boxes of Gold Dots without a single hiccup in my LC9. Also 600 trouble free rounds shot though a Kel Tech P3AT miniature 380. One thing that I do besides very careful cleaning of extractor and breech-face, is to lightly lube all contact surfaces with Lubriplate. Lubriplate was developed for the M1 Garand and I started using in High Power Rifle matches and practice years ago. Guns lightly lubed on rails, barrels and other contact points are quite slick and the stuff does not migrate or evaporate. It is clearly makes gun actions slicker than oil or Breakfree. I use a water color brush to paint a thin coat on contact surfaces. http://www.midwayusa.com/product/446877/lubriplate-130-a-mil-spec-grease-14-oz-can
There is always the guy who figures if this works, he will just substitute with Walmart wheel bearing grease. To this I say just save the money and use chicken fat.

OldePhart · Feb 15, 2015

At this point I'll try anything @MountainWalker

OldePhart · Mar 12, 2015

MountainWalker said:
Perhaps this idea may help. I have shot up 8 boxes of FMJ and several boxes of Gold Dots without a single hiccup in my LC9. Also 600 trouble free rounds shot though a Kel Tech P3AT miniature 380. One thing that I do besides very careful cleaning of extractor and breech-face, is to lightly lube all contact surfaces with Lubriplate. Lubriplate was developed for the M1 Garand and I started using in High Power Rifle matches and practice years ago. Guns lightly lubed on rails, barrels and other contact points are quite slick and the stuff does not migrate or evaporate. It is clearly makes gun actions slicker than oil or Breakfree. I use a water color brush to paint a thin coat on contact surfaces. http://www.midwayusa.com/product/446877/lubriplate-130-a-mil-spec-grease-14-oz-can
There is always the guy who figures if this works, he will just substitute with Walmart wheel bearing grease. To this I say just save the money and use chicken fat.

Heh, heh. I remembered this post and went searching through several threads to find it again. I just followed the link to midway...chicken fat probably costs more than this stuff (I don't consider < $10 for almost a pound of a product to be expensive enough to tempt me to use either WalMart axle grease or chicken fat).

Anyway, thanks again for the recommendation I'm going to give some a shot on a couple of my guns.

MountainWalker · Mar 12, 2015

Does make for slick actions. After a year without use, the Lubriplate film on the gun starts to turn yellow. Just wipe off with paper towel and apply fresh coat and re-assemble.

OldePhart · Mar 12, 2015

MountainWalker said:
Does make for slick actions. After a year without use, the Lubriplate film on the gun starts to turn yellow. Just wipe off with paper towel and apply fresh coat and re-assemble.

Turns yellow, huh...maybe it is chicken fat...the secret is out! :shock:

FergusonTO35 · Mar 25, 2015

The LC9S is sweet, however I wish Ruger had made the whole LC series mechanically a downsized version of the SR series. Looking at the LC parts diagrams I think they look awfully complicated for such a small gun. Also, Ruger has gotten most of the bugs out of the SR's, why start over with a completely new design? I love Ruger but will stick with Glock for my .380 and 9mm carry pieces.

OldePhart · Mar 25, 2015

FergusonTO35 said:
...Also, Ruger has gotten most of the bugs out of the SR's, why start over with a completely new design?...

probably because the "new" design is functionally basically a copy of something else (KelTec, I think)? I've heard detractors say that Ruger's engineering department is just a bunch of interns scouring expired patents... LOL Probably more than a bit of an exaggeration but where there's smoke...

I too will be sticking with Glock for carry pistols...especially now that they've officially announced the model 43. I wish I'd had a sniff of that news before I bought my 26 last month!

Glock has had one or two bobbles with new models in the last couple of years (mostly on the Gen 4s) but they are probably the only company that I still have enough faith in to perhaps take a chance on being an early adopter again...I've actually come within a gnat's whisker of calling my favorite LGS and telling them that I've got dips on the first G43 they can get in stock!

blume357 · Mar 26, 2015

I don't have a lot of experience with Glocks, have only shot 2 or 3 over the years... but I can say the only semi-auto that I have limp wristed was a Glock 19..... then again I got to shoot a Glock 18 a few years back.... I think on the 20th round I limp wristed that one too....
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rfV8HnRDH70

Sonnyd · Mar 27, 2015

I just bought a LC9 S Pro today, and put 100 WWB rounds and 25 of Hornady Critical Defense which I use in everything...0 malfunctions of any kind. I've carried a S&W Shield for a year now. it's an Awesome gun, 1500 rounds, 0 failures with any ammo... I've got a Bunch of blocks (8)... but after having the Shield, no way in the world i'd fall for buying that
43....6 Rounds, are you kidding, LOL...Thanks, but no Thanks Glock.... I'll keep my 19's and 17's, 30S 29, 34.... Hopefully the 43 will be more reliable then the 42..LOL....
I cleaned the LC9S when I finished, and the takedown pin came right out, I just turned it on it's side and it fell out... Found out something extra nice. I have a Galco King Tuck for my Shield, and the LC9 fits it perfectly....turn it up side down, and the retention is fine, and covers the trigger completely...A nice bonus for me......

mn_doggie · Mar 28, 2015

OldePhart said:
FergusonTO35 said:

...Also, Ruger has gotten most of the bugs out of the SR's, why start over with a completely new design?...

Click to expand...

probably because the "new" design is functionally basically a copy of something else (KelTec, I think)? I've heard detractors say that Ruger's engineering department is just a bunch of interns scouring expired patents... LOL Probably more than a bit of an exaggeration but where there's smoke...

I too will be sticking with Glock for carry pistols...especially now that they've officially announced the model 43. I wish I'd had a sniff of that news before I bought my 26 last month!

Glock has had one or two bobbles with new models in the last couple of years (mostly on the Gen 4s) but they are probably the only company that I still have enough faith in to perhaps take a chance on being an early adopter again...I've actually come within a gnat's whisker of calling my favorite LGS and telling them that I've got dips on the first G43 they can get in stock!

So Ruger's "new design" copied Keltec? Keltec makes a single stack striker fired 9mm. News to me.

OldePhart · Mar 28, 2015

mn_doggie said:
So Ruger's "new design" copied Keltec? Keltec makes a single stack striker fired 9mm. News to me.

You might want to compare the LC9 and the P9, then see how much of the LC9 was retained for the LC9s... :wink:

mn_doggie · Mar 28, 2015

OldePhart said:
mn_doggie said:

So Ruger's "new design" copied Keltec? Keltec makes a single stack striker fired 9mm. News to me.

Click to expand...

You might want to compare the LC9 and the P9, then see how much of the LC9 was retained for the LC9s... :wink:

Again, when did Keltec make a striker fired single stack?

Even on the LC9, Ruger put in features that weren't on the Keltec. For instance, you said you had ejector problems. Have you looked at the difference between the two company's ejectors?

The Rugers (both model of LC9) have mag disconnects, lever safety and on the LC9s, the entire slide is different cuz of being a striker with a striker block.

But you are right, both have a hand grip, trigger, barrel, mags and sights. A lot of others seem to have copied that, too.

MountainWalker · Mar 29, 2015

mn_doggie said:
OldePhart said:

mn_doggie said:

So Ruger's "new design" copied Keltec? Keltec makes a single stack striker fired 9mm. News to me.

Click to expand...

You might want to compare the LC9 and the P9, then see how much of the LC9 was retained for the LC9s... :wink:

Click to expand...

Again, when did Keltec make a striker fired single stack?

Even on the LC9, Ruger put in features that weren't on the Keltec. For instance, you said you had ejector problems. Have you looked at the difference between the two company's ejectors?

The Rugers (both model of LC9) have mag disconnects, lever safety and on the LC9s, the entire slide is different cuz of being a striker with a striker block.

But you are right, both have a hand grip, trigger, barrel, mags and sights. A lot of others seem to have copied that, too.

What the old guy is talking about is that the original LC9(hammer fired) is pretty much an improved copy of the Kel Tech PF-9, because it was a good design that Kel Tech never bothered to patent. Same thing with the Ruger LCP, it is a improved copy of the Kel Tech P3AT. Now, due to customer demand the Ruger folks took the old LC9 and re-engineered it to be a striker weapon and called it the LC9s. Ruger has always been clever at taking a good design and incorporating into their products.

mn_doggie · Mar 29, 2015

MountainWalker said:
mn_doggie said:

OldePhartYou might want to compare the LC9 and the P9 said:

Again, when did Keltec make a striker fired single stack?

Even on the LC9, Ruger put in features that weren't on the Keltec. For instance, you said you had ejector problems. Have you looked at the difference between the two company's ejectors?

The Rugers (both model of LC9) have mag disconnects, lever safety and on the LC9s, the entire slide is different cuz of being a striker with a striker block.

But you are right, both have a hand grip, trigger, barrel, mags and sights. A lot of others seem to have copied that, too.

Click to expand...

What the old guy is talking about is that the original LC9(hammer fired) is pretty much an improved copy of the Kel Tech PF-9, because it was a good design that Kel Tech never bothered to patent. Same thing with the Ruger LCP, it is a improved copy of the Kel Tech P3AT. Now, due to customer demand the Ruger folks took the old LC9 and re-engineered it to be a striker weapon and called it the LC9s. Ruger has always been clever at taking a good design and incorporating into their products.[/quote]

This is what "the old guy" (your words) specifically said:

probably because the "new" design is functionally basically a copy of something else (KelTec, I think)? I've heard detractors say that Ruger's engineering department is just a bunch of interns scouring expired patents... LOL Probably more than a bit of an exaggeration but where there's smoke...

And my point was that the "redesign" wasn't based on a Kel tech model because they don't make a striker version.

The switch from a hammer version to a striker version requires a redesign of the entire pistol, both the slide and the lower unit. The hammer portion is in the lower half. The hammer spring is located inside the hand grip. All of that is gone in the 9s.

Keltec never had any patents on it's 3AT or 9 mm pistols because they couldn't. There was nothing unique about their design. Just making something smaller isn't usually patentable.

I've very familiar with the Keltec vs Ruger similarities since I have both the LCP and an LC9s.

Also have a SR22 which people claim is a direct copy of the Walther P22 (except the barrel is mounted different, takedown lever, mag disconnect, mag release is different, and the decockers, etc are mounted on the frame rather than the slide.... but again, they both have barrels, grips, sights, magazines, etc.)

I suppose one could say a bunch of interns designed the first Glocks cuz all their "special features" existed before:

The Remington Nylon 66 was the first polymer firearm, long before Glocks were introduced.

Heckler and Koch VP70 made the first striker fired polymer firearm in 1970, a full 10 years before Glock produced one.

The trigger safety on the Glocks was first found on the Iver Johnson's Arms and Cycle Works revolvers in the early 1900's.

Click to expand...

New LC9s

Help Support Ruger Forum:

Blackhawk

Blackhawk

Hawkeye

Blackhawk

Hawkeye

Bearcat

Single-Sixer

Blackhawk

Blackhawk

Single-Sixer

Blackhawk

Hunter

Blackhawk

Hawkeye

Bearcat

Bearcat

Blackhawk

Bearcat

Single-Sixer

Bearcat

Similar threads