RugerForum.com

We've all been looking at the size of the LC9s, especially in comparison to the other Tiny Ninies.

Here are the links:
http://www.gunblast.com/Kahr-CM9.htm
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-LC9.htm

I took the liberty of cutting/pasting two pictures from the Gunblast reviews on the LC9 and the new Kahr CM9. Jeff was nice enough to provide pictures of both new pistols with the LCPs. I just merged the picture and came up with this Ruger vs Kahr size comparison.

They sure look the same. Comments?



Dave

_________________
Suffering with RDS (Ruger Derangement Syndrome) since 1975 . . . .
I used to be indecisive but now I am not so sure.

I just got done watching Hickok45s video on youtube about the LC9 and the PF9 duel and the LCR won hands down. I bought the LC9 and took it to the back of the shop on the farm and test fired comparing the LC to the Kel-tec pistols and others we get from the factories and,the only tie was between the Kel-tec P-11 and the LC9 with no f t for ftes out of the 500 rounds we shot thru 10 pistols to the comparble size of the LC9.

I much prefer the custom "melted" look of the Ruger over the CM-9. With the sole exception of the SR9-C, I've never really cared for the looks of any Ruger semiauto pistol. But this new LC9 by Ruger has broken the mold. And in my opinion may have finally created a semiauto with mass visual appeal. This is a true first for Ruger! I like what I see.

A.W.

From their websites:

LC9/Kahr PM9 (The new CM9 should have the same dimensions etc. as the PM9)

Barrel: 3.12"/3"
Slide width: .9"/.9"
OAL: 6"/5.3"
Height 4.5"/4" (negated if using Kahr's 7rd. (optional) magazine and not using Ruger's finger extension)
Weight empty with mag.: 17.1/15.9

Pretty darn close if you ask me. The OAL is the biggest difference. Of course the Kahr costs more and doesn't have an LCI and thumb safety. The new CM9 will cost even less and price wise will be a better comparison as the LC9/CM9 will both come with only one magazine. The Kahr will still cost more OTD.

_________________
If you're not living on the edge, you're taking up too much space...
"Life happens now, and it can be lost in yesterday, or misspent waiting for tomorrow."
NRA Benefactor
www.GeorgiaCarry.org

I like them both. Since the only one shipping now is the LC9 there is no decision to be made and I ordered a LC9. If they were both available now I think I would still have picked the Ruger, but it would be a harder choice.

_________________
Today, if Dorothy were to encounter men (or women) with no brains, no hearts, and no courage, she wouldn't be in in the Land of Oz - - -
She'd be in the US Congress

IMO the LC9 is more akin to the Taurus PT111 that resides in my safe. All controls save for the loaded chamber indicator (Taurus used the extractor) are in the same place, except Ruger moved the lawyer lock from the slide to the frame. Same weight, width, etc. but the Ruger gets the nod for length. Even cost is about the same.

Then again, the PT111 has 10+1 capacity and they make it in 40S&W AND 357SIG ! How about those options, Ruger?

The LC9 is a bit more "melted" but then styles have changed since the PT111 was first marketed 10-11 years ago! The hooked tripper guard so trendy decades ago has given way to the Hollywood rail ala the SR9c and kin.

The Kahr has been over-priced IMO, as it is a fine weapon but one could put PT111 or LC9 in each hand for the cost of a new Kahr PM9.

.

_________________
Who Killed Scalia?

.

The LC9 is much smaller and lighter than the Taurus PT111. It's somewhat close to the weight and dimensions of the Taurus PT709 Slim, however, the LC9 actually works.

I've never owned a PT709, but can attest I had zero FTF failures with my PT111 over the years I've owned and shot it. I did have a problem with GDHP stuff once - with one 10-rd mag, (Taurus supplied two to Ruger's single mag; spares cost you extra) but they replaced it with a phone call (Mec-Gar makes the magazines for the PT and LC9 gunsafterall).
t
Experience maters though - hearsay doesn't. I cannot say how the new LC9 performs but give it ten years to catch up with the Taurus design. Maybe less as Ruger is indeed getting better at reverse-engineering others' proven designs.
- That's not a slam, I own several.

_________________
Who Killed Scalia?

.

I have an LC9 which so far has performed flawlessly. I owned a Taurus PT111 which I traded for my SR9c when it started doing light strikes. I also owned a PT709 - after four trips to the factory for warranty repairs (FTE's, FTF's, light strikes, dropped mags and a broker guide rod) I gave up and sold it for a loss. I know other folks have had better experiences, but I just got fed up and lost patience (and confidence as a carry gun).

I forgot, I still own a Taurus 605 snubbie - works fine now but it took three trips to the factory to refit the cylinder so it wouldn't bind. Their lifetime warranty just doesn't mean much to me with that level of quality control.

I've owned several Taurus pistols and one revolver...but none now, and never again. I prefer to own products made by companies that make quality products and stand behind them with excellent customer service. Like flkent said, that lifetime warranty that Taurus touts isn't worth much when your firearms spend that lifetime in the shop!

I got my LC9 because I do a lot of business with a local gun shop, and they called me as soon as they got one in. In fact, they got in three, and sold all three within minutes over the phone. When I went in to get mine, there were at least 5 customers coming in to ask about them while I was there doing the paperwork, etc.

_________________
Ken
USN 1969 - 1973 (HM2)

I have a Taurus PT908 and love it. Don't remember a FTF or FTE, but in all those years I might have forgotten. Unfortunately it is a bit heavier and larger so I opted to go for the LC9. It is almost identical to the 709 in size, but about 1/2" shorter and Ruger's reputation for reliability made the difference. There are a couple things about the 709 I actually preferred, but don't want to risk unreliability for CCW.

_________________
Today, if Dorothy were to encounter men (or women) with no brains, no hearts, and no courage, she wouldn't be in in the Land of Oz - - -
She'd be in the US Congress