I May Have To Retire My LC9S - It's Not Dependable

[woodsy]

Apparently, this person (Conservative) is beyond appreciating any constructive replies. He/she prefers to rant instead of having the problem resolved. Time to close the thread, methinks.

 

[Clovishound]

The only advice I can offer here is to not be stubborn about getting Ruger Customer service to fix your problem. I played around with an occasional failure to reset with my SR9c. It was 6 years old and had around 4,000 to 5,000 rounds through it. Before this it performed flawlessly. When my buddy and I started developing loads for 9mm, he would give me rounds that this Glock would not feed, and my SR9c ate them up and asked for more.

Anyway, after playing around for months with cleaning and trying different bullet weights, new recoil spring etc, I finally decided to send it back to Prescott. Turnaround time was about 2 weeks. It now performs flawlessly again.

 

[5of7]

For some Ruger is a deity - for me it's just a tool and my particular tool purchase has led to maximum frustration and I will say so even if it chaps the buttocks of the diehards...

:lol: Conservative, what you are hearing here ain't nothin'.

You should have seen the flack I got from the members of the model 12 forum when I got on there and told them about how the 870 blew the model 12 out of the water. :shock:

I have had pretty good luck with Ruger's guns, starting back about 55 years ago when I bought my first 10/22 and since, spending the price of a decent house on their revolvers, pistols, shotguns and rifles. Aside from some fit and finish issues, they have all performed as intended......but nobody is perfect and that includes Ruger. 8)

 

[FergusonTO35]

Ruger is perfectly capable of making good guns, and usually does. The biggest problem is that they are rushing so many new models to market and letting the customer do QC for them. Every big introduction they've had back to the SR9 has had problems and required updates. It is expected that a new design is going to need some modification, but Ruger has so many new models out at once with attendant problems that it creates the impression that their products are junk.

I would have been interested in an LC9 if it was a single stack SR9. The SR has had most of the bugs worked out and is quite popular here. Don't know why Ruger puts all that effort into a gun and then decides to just start all over again when they want to introduce a new variant of it.

 

[5of7]

Ruger is perfectly capable of making good guns, and usually does. The biggest problem is that they are rushing so many new models to market and letting the customer do QC .

Yeah, maybe the got the idea from Windows operating systems

 

[Clovishound]

Ruger is perfectly capable of making good guns, and usually does. The biggest problem is that they are rushing so many new models to market and letting the customer do QC .

Yeah, maybe the got the idea from Windows operating systems

Just be glad they didn't follow Apple's lead. Your Ruger would only work with Ruger ammo.

 

[FergusonTO35]

Apple: where everything is ten times as difficult and costs twice as much. The only reason I have an Iphone is because it was free and does everything I need it to do, which ain't much.

My personal software is from Open Office. It's free and works like the older versions of Windows.

 

[SR1911SHOOTER]

Conservative,
Are you one of these "You Tube Guys" who knock everything and think that you
are the best reviewer ever?
Blackie

 

[Conservative]

FergusonTO35,

Thank you for your insight.

At this point, I'm either going to buy a Glock 43 or a 26. Have yet to decide.
Ruger...never again for me. Their QC has slipped dramatically, but if one says so on this forum, it's almost Orwellian how the diehards can't take any form criticism of their beloved Ruger what have you...

Heck, I've already sent the LC9S in to the factory once as the front sight went from vertical to horizontal and the rear sight couldn't be budged. Plus, of course, except for the 'one' magazine supplied with the gun, even the extra Ruger magazines 'all failed'. I'm sick of this. Let's face it, their now putting out low quality firearms and hoping their once vaunted (and for previous years deserved) reputation will allow them to get away with now selling low quality crap...

SR1911SHOOTER,

Wake up on the wrong side of the bed? Ready to start being a cranky old guy?

My experience and comments aren't required reading. Stop reading what I have to say about Ruger and you'll rest easier.

When you see I've made a post, don't read it. Enjoy life rather than starting crap on the internet.

Now, I appreciate you're a feisty, ancient, curmudgeon, as am I. Though, for sure you're a bit older...hope that status continues for you you grumpy old cuss.

Oh, I neglected to add, I don't do youtube videos. I'm not a reviewer, just another shooter with poor quality Ruger experience, that I'm willing to share. Even though it chaps the buttocks of the diehards.

 

[SR1911SHOOTER]

Took it to the range yesterday.

Oh, I bought a 7 round magazine as an additional magazine to the one that came with the pistol.

After the first 50 or so rounds, the gun started to fail to go into battery or fail to eject.

I've never had so many failures and yes, I know how to shoot and what limp wristing is all about. That wasn't the problem. I have other pistols that have never failed me.

I will go through one maybe two more range efforts and if it continues to fail, (it's broken in with approximately 250/300 rounds shot) I'm gonna retire it. It could serve as a paper weight as I wouldn't give this (no, I'd NEVER sell this to anyone) who would use it to defend themselves with.

My ammo ranged from Blazer 115 grain, FMJ to Fiochhi 115 grain (sp?) to Lawman 147 FMJ and HST 147 grain JHP's.

My Glock 19's will fire all of the above without a hiccup.

My estimation of this pistol is: Don't carry it for self defense as it's unreliable.

I bought it because I thought: Light, dependable, certain that all the reviews could be depended on. I wanted a sub-compact for house and yard carry.

What my experience is: It often fails to go into battery or fails to eject and on and on and on.

You get what you pay for...

As stated earlier, if it continues to fail, (it's already been sent back to Ruger for other problems) I'll retire it, and buy a Glock 43.

Glocks are dependable.

I have 2 that have never failed to perform, ever.

Ruger's quality is dismal...

Conservative,
"Oh, I bought a 7 round magazine as an additional magazine to the one that came with the pistol."

Did you ever think that maybe the mag was faulty?
Blackie




"

 

[SR1911SHOOTER]

I have an LC9s and would not trade it for a bucket of fresh catfish.
Shoots great, fits my back pocket with the leather liner too.
Most problems with semi autos are the mags. RE: The Remington R51.
And many 1911s. Give it another chance!
Blackie

 

[SR1911SHOOTER]

Took it to the range yesterday.

Oh, I bought a 7 round magazine as an additional magazine to the one that came with the pistol.

After the first 50 or so rounds, the gun started to fail to go into battery or fail to eject.

I've never had so many failures and yes, I know how to shoot and what limp wristing is all about. That wasn't the problem. I have other pistols that have never failed me.

I will go through one maybe two more range efforts and if it continues to fail, (it's broken in with approximately 250/300 rounds shot) I'm gonna retire it. It could serve as a paper weight as I wouldn't give this (no, I'd NEVER sell this to anyone) who would use it to defend themselves with.

My ammo ranged from Blazer 115 grain, FMJ to Fiochhi 115 grain (sp?) to Lawman 147 FMJ and HST 147 grain JHP's.

My Glock 19's will fire all of the above without a hiccup.

My estimation of this pistol is: Don't carry it for self defense as it's unreliable.

I bought it because I thought: Light, dependable, certain that all the reviews could be depended on. I wanted a sub-compact for house and yard carry.

What my experience is: It often fails to go into battery or fails to eject and on and on and on.

You get what you pay for...

As stated earlier, if it continues to fail, (it's already been sent back to Ruger for other problems) I'll retire it, and buy a Glock 43.

Glocks are dependable.

I have 2 that have never failed to perform, ever.

Ruger's quality is dismal...

Conservative,
I have an LC9s and would not trade it for a bucket of fresh catfish.
Shoots great, fits my back pocket with the leather liner too.
Most problems with semi autos are the mags. RE: The Remington R51.
And many 1911s. Give it another chance! Or, if you are a complainer
for the sake of complaining, go somewhere else.

Blackie

 

[vba]

Change the recoil spring if it has many rounds thru it.

 

[gc70]

Lemons pop up in anything manufactured.

Quite true.

Good luck with Glocks.

 

[woodsy]

Another one of those threads which cause us to seriously doubt the OP's credibility. Exaggeration causes disbelief.

 

[louchia]

If there are any issues with the gun, I would contact Ruger CS. I would send it back as many times as necessary to get it right, As long as the costs are on them . At some point I would ask for a new gun.
I would definitely not make a paper weight of it.
Yes their QC needs to be better. Don't give up.
Ruger obviously has way to many complaints. If you notice at the bottom of their web page, there is a botton for "tell the CEO". That button has been inactive for quite a while.
My personal experience with Ruger CS has been very good. I had bad luck with the LCP. It was replaced and replaced again and a third time. I asked for an upgrade to an LCT II. They did so for free. I have heard or others with the same experience.
It is pointless to make it a paper weight or keep it for any reason, if not a reliable firearm.

 

[CoyoteHunter_]

Conservative:
Did you do an initial cleaning and lubing of the gun before taking it out to the shooting range?

You mentioned several different types of ammo that you used in the gun.

But you failed to mention which ammo you were using when the gun failed?

I've written about certain Hornady Critical Duty 9mm FlexLock 135 gr 9 mm ammo that fails to feed in all three of the different type of Ruger LC9s Pro gun magazines. It's more due to the shape of the bullets head not staking on top of each other and the design of the feed ramp that makes the gun jam. The top bullet will nose down and stick on the bottom of the feed ramp when I use this ammo.

When I use Blazer Brass 9mm 115 gr FMJ bullets they stack perfectly and feed reiiablly all day long.

So could you please make a note as to which ammo caused you gun to not fire properly? Did they all ftf or just one of them. I'm doing research on this subject and would like some feedback.

Did you buy the Pro Mag type magazines for your Ruger Pistol or did you buy the Ruger Italian made magazines or the ones made by Ruger in the USA?

 

[misterbunnywunny]

Yeah -- Hi Points are pretty underrated. I have a JHP 45 that I absolutely love. I mean it weighs 500 pounds, so I'll never carry it. But it's been reliable, accurate, and eats any kind of ammo I feed it. Considering one of the new HP 10mm carbines...

jstanfield103,

Thank you for your understanding response.

Armybrat,

Thank you too, and yes, my comment was sweeping, but I fear not that far off the mark. Ruger QC is not what it once was.

Being the persistent cuss that I am, I will continue to shoot it with the hopes as more rounds are expended it'll get better, smooth out if you will, failure to feed or eject becoming a thing of the past, if not it'll either be a paper weight or I'll cut it up into little bitty throw away pieces. I wouldn't give this pistol to anyone as they may actually attempt to depend on it...

As mentioned earlier, the mag it came with performs admirably, the extra 3 I bought to supplement it have all failed to either feed or eject properly. Everyone were Ruger products, not something that'll fit a Ruger, but genuine Ruger products sold by... (in this case Midway). So, they weren't chinese knock offs or something sold by a disreputable supplier.

I have some experience with Sig and once had a failure. So gun failures and me aren't unknown, but not at the level I'm currently experiencing with the LC9S. However Glock, Colt, Savage, plus many others I've had, were outstanding in their dependability.

I've only been on this forum for a short time and see others complaining about this and that regarding Ruger quality problems.

I'm not the only one experiencing problems with poor Ruger quality, who previously I thought of as a high to premium quality and perhaps gave them to much credit...? Thus my constant problems with their products have led me to a level of frustration as to make sweeping comments about them.

Here's a kicker: I usually buy high quality, but broke down and bought a Hi-Point 9mm carbine as a truck gun. I've run about a 1000 rounds through it without a single hiccup. Two other people shot it also with ever encountering a problem.

Odd, we disparage some mfg's, but if their products don't fail...

Then we buy one we expect to perform and it consistently doesn't - am I going to complain...?

Yes, yes I am and the hardcore Ruger fans go amuck.

For some Ruger is a deity - for me it's just a tool and my particular tool purchase has led to maximum frustration and I will say so even if it chaps the buttocks of the diehards...

 

[woodsy]

Conservative:
Did you do an initial cleaning and lubing of the gun before taking it out to the shooting range?

You mentioned several different types of ammo that you used in the gun.

But you failed to mention which ammo you were using when the gun failed?

I've written about certain Hornady Critical Duty 9mm FlexLock 135 gr 9 mm ammo that fails to feed in all three of the different type of Ruger LC9s Pro gun magazines. It's more due to the shape of the bullets head not staking on top of each other and the design of the feed ramp that makes the gun jam. The top bullet will nose down and stick on the bottom of the feed ramp when I use this ammo.

When I use Blazer Brass 9mm 115 gr FMJ bullets they stack perfectly and feed reiiablly all day long.

So could you please make a note as to which ammo caused you gun to not fire properly? Did they all ftf or just one of them. I'm doing research on this subject and would like some feedback.

Did you buy the Pro Mag type magazines for your Ruger Pistol or did you buy the Ruger Italian made magazines or the ones made by Ruger in the USA?

I don't think the OP will answer your questions, because he/she is a "knocker", who simply wishes to complain. For what reason, I don't know, since the OP cannot cite any specifics. Better for us all to take it with a humongous grain of salt. My LC9sPro has been flawless with all reasonable ammo, besides the deliberately-loaded weak handloads, just to see how low it will accept. Perhaps the thread should be "frozen", lacking any meaningful input from the OP.

 

[Tom W]

I may be a bit late, but I had a Glock model 19 as well as a Ruger LC9s Pro. They would eat anything that I fed them, and I fed them only handloads. Due to health reasons I traded off the Glock. The LC9s Pro has yet to give me any problems. It is my carry gun now. I bought a CZ 75 SP-01 that I'm still ironing out the kinks from. It won't eat what the Glock and Ruger would, and I had a BUNCH of food for them.
Keep us updated as to your progress with Rugers handling of your problem, but to condemn all Rugers as junk is a bit extreme. Yours may be or has been, but I'm thinking not everyone bought a lemon.