LC9 manual safety

[josh2415]

Had to comment on the LC9 manual safety. I'm a lefty and one of the reasons that I bought my SR9c was the fact that it had an ambidextrous safety. Though the LC9 is a little big for pocket carry, I'd consider it for IWB carry if it weren't for the fact that it only has a safety on one side - there's no way I'd buy one unless Ruger offered it with the safety on BOTH sides.

What was Ruger thinking? Mfg cost savings? I don't know the percentage of left handed shooters, but I would think that it would be significant, and if so, it would seem that Ruger is really limiting their market. Any other lefties out there that agree?

I wonder if there's any hope of Ruger adding an ambidextrous safety to the LC9 down the road?

 

[Al James]

Just carry it with the safety off. Keep it holstered and your finger off the go button. Thats what I plan to do when Ruger makes a SS one :wink:

 

[Specs]

Just carry it with the safety off. Keep it holstered and your finger off the go button. Thats what I plan to do when Ruger makes a SS one :wink:

Yes.

 

[Pernal]

I don't know if Ruger will make one in stainless steel? They didn't for the LCP; The closest was a hard chrome slide. 8)

 

[Specs]

Blackened stainless would make up for the things about it that I don't like.

 

[Lateck]

Sorry to here about that problem but I (Me) love manual safeties!!!!

I wish my LCP had one! AND YES I know that the finger is the SAFETY!
But I'm an old school BHP guy.

Lateck,

 

[Specs]

Sorry to here about that problem but I (Me) love manual safeties!!!!

I wish my LCP had one! AND YES I know that the finger is the SAFETY!
But I'm an old school BHP guy.

Lateck,

Yes, but the Browning is a different style action altogether. Just compare the Browning with your LCP and the reason for safety on one and no safety on the other is clear.

 

[josh2415]

Just carry it with the safety off. Keep it holstered and your finger off the go button. Thats what I plan to do when Ruger makes a SS one :wink:

You're probably right Al, I just hate to have an unusable (or one that I don't practice using) safety on my carry pistol - and Murphy's Law dictates that the safety will be on at the time that I need the pistol the most... I'd rather not risk putting myself in that situation. There are other 9mm single stacks around that don't have a manual safety. Sorry Ruger.

 

[Strange]

Safety or no safety, I think Ruger has another winner. They needed something to fill the gap between SR9c and a LCP. Now they have a true compact.

 

[yogiboobooranger]

Have to agree with Strange, and I am on the local gun shop list (first in line..LOL) to get the LC9 when they get some in. I usually do not buy when the gun is so new to the market, but in this situation I don't mind being one of the Beta testers. I think that since the gun will be so much like the LCP, that there will be no issues with the design. Cannot wait!! :mrgreen:

 

[Bigboreshooter]

I like the LC9 (from what I see and read) and will probably get one later this year.

I consider the safety to be a non-issue. I never use the safeties on any of my P series pistols. Don't know why I would ever need to use it on the LC9 since it's DAO.

 

[chrislind2]

I should be banned from buying any more handguns....just kidding!
I settled on a .380 Sig P238 for carry and now I HAVE to get the LC9.
I'm stacking the pistols in my safe now.
I guess I should go safe shopping and get the LC9 this summer for my birthday. I need a fireproof safe anyway.

 

[Yawn]

Not the gun for me, but Ruger is the company for me so I am glad to hear all of this good response to it.

 

[josh2415]

Not the gun for me, but Ruger is the company for me so I am glad to hear all of this good response to it.

+1 Couldn't agree more

 

[dacaur]

Had to comment on the LC9 manual safety. I'm a lefty and one of the reasons that I bought my SR9c was the fact that it had an ambidextrous safety. Though the LC9 is a little big for pocket carry, I'd consider it for IWB carry if it weren't for the fact that it only has a safety on one side - there's no way I'd buy one unless Ruger offered it with the safety on BOTH sides.

What was Ruger thinking? Mfg cost savings? I don't know the percentage of left handed shooters, but I would think that it would be significant, and if so, it would seem that Ruger is really limiting their market. Any other lefties out there that agree?

I wonder if there's any hope of Ruger adding an ambidextrous safety to the LC9 down the road?

Well, they cant make every gun please everyone, I would guess that the percentage of left handed shooters is roughly the same as the percentage of left handed humans, around 10%. So its not surprising that many gun makers cater more to the 90% than the 10%... An ambidextrous safety adds width to a gun. Another possible issue with ambi safety's is that the safety can be inadvertently knocked off when its on the right side of the gun (edit, when carried by a right handed shooter strong side). Thats why many people who carry 1911's replace ambi safety's with single sided. I'm not saying it would be a problem on this gun, its a pretty small safety, but its something gun designers may consider.... I wouldn't buy a carry gun with an ambi safety simply because the less there is to go wrong and or worry about with a CCW, the better IMO.

 

[josh2415]

Thanks all for the feedback, and for letting me vent. I like the LC9 and agree that it should be a good seller for Ruger - just bummed that it doesn't have an ambi safety.