LC9 Range Report

[jhearne]

Thanks for the review and pictures!! Nice lookin' gun!

 

[Verndog]

How come there's no target pics ???

REV

Personally for me his statement

I was really just plinking, but the gun seemed to group well. It was hitting about 2 inches low for me, but I think that is me.

does more for me then target pics. Too many variables with target pics relating to shooters experiance, how close, how fast...ect ect to get a feel for accuracy, but maybe thats just me.

 

[revhigh]

How come there's no target pics ???

REV

Personally for me his statement

I was really just plinking, but the gun seemed to group well. It was hitting about 2 inches low for me, but I think that is me.

does more for me then target pics. Too many variables with target pics relating to shooters experiance, how close, how fast...ect ect to get a feel for accuracy, but maybe thats just me.

That's all well and good, but I gotta believe that there was some assessment of how accurately the gun shot (at the very least in the privacy of the owner's mind) ... just 'plinking' or not. Stating that a gun 'grouped well' says nothing without stating rough group size and distance that the gun was being shot. That's FAR more important to 'me' than whether a gun could plink successfully .... what gun won't do that ?

I'd think a range report, other than mentioning reliability, ammo types and digestion ability, rapid and slow fire performance, and description of trigger actuation/feel ... would include an assessment of the accuracy of a gun in the shooter's hands, along with an honest assessment of the shooter's abilities in HIS view, to temper the accuracy assessment.

REV

 

[mrbumps]

I was shooting at about 7 - 10 yards. I would estimate the group size to be approx 2" at that range, maybe a tad more. All the official ranges are outdoors around here, and with the snow thigh deep, I don't think I will be visiting one for 6 weeks or so!

 

[nekvermont]

All the official ranges are outdoors around here, and with the snow thigh deep, I don't think I will be visiting one for 6 weeks or so!

6 weeks? Man, I think that's optimistic!

 

[mrbumps]

All the official ranges are outdoors around here, and with the snow thigh deep, I don't think I will be visiting one for 6 weeks or so!

6 weeks? Man, I think that's optimistic!

Hey, didn't you hear, the groundhog did NOT see his shadow! :lol:

Where in the NEK are you?

 

[Blizzard]

What price?

 

[78CJ5]

Thanks for posting a report and the pictures.

 

[mrbumps]

What price?

$389

 

[rtf_chucktown]

Do you have any idea how the size compares to the LCR? I own an LCR and although light and compact, I find the butt end can still stick out if I try to pocket carry or sometimes even IWB. I'm also hoping the LC9 may be more accurate-at least for me. I own a CZ82 and can shoot fairly tight groups but the LCR is much less consistent. My guess is it's related to barrel length and recoil.

 

[Verndog]

.... an honest assessment of the shooter's abilities in HIS view, to temper the accuracy assessment.

REV

Thats why I didn't post my range report and 10 round target pic. Too much controversy because there was only 1 visible hole. All 10 went through the same hole at 21ft. rapid fire of course.

 

[nekvermont]

Mrbumps, I'm in Peacham.

 

[mrbumps]

Mrbumps, I'm in Peacham.

Beautiful spot. I always visit there at least once during the foliage season. I also do some grouse hunting in the Butterfield Mountain land in Groton.

 

[Kudzu]

Do you have any idea how the size compares to the LCR? I own an LCR and although light and compact, I find the butt end can still stick out if I try to pocket carry or sometimes even IWB. I'm also hoping the LC9 may be more accurate-at least for me. I own a CZ82 and can shoot fairly tight groups but the LCR is much less consistent. My guess is it's related to barrel length and recoil.

According to Ruger specs:

Length: LCR 6.5", LC9 6.0"
Width: LCR 1.28", LC9 .90"
Height: LCR 4.5", LC9 4.5"
Weight: LCR .38+P 13.5 oz., LC9 17.1 oz.

 

[axisofoil]

Thanks for the pictures with the SR9c. I was considering one of these guys instead of an SR9c for cc, but really, I can't see it making a large difference for me, as it's usually only the grip-frame that prints for me, and I don't mind carrying around a little extra weight.

 

[revhigh]

.... an honest assessment of the shooter's abilities in HIS view, to temper the accuracy assessment.

REV

Thats why I didn't post my range report and 10 round target pic. Too much controversy because there was only 1 visible hole. All 10 went through the same hole at 21ft. rapid fire of course.

What ???? No assessment of your shooting skills VD ????

REV

 

[Clarkston_cz]

I spoke to my Dealer today.

He didn't know about the LC9 until I told him right after Ruger announced them, and I told him aday later.

He now has a few of them on order here in Eastern WA.

I'm really excited to check one out.

 

[Glupy]

I was considering one of these guys instead of an SR9c for cc, but really, I can't see it making a large difference for me, as it's usually only the grip-frame that prints for me, and I don't mind carrying around a little extra weight.

Good point.

I have an LCP and was ready to order the LC9; wanting the more powerful cartridge. But I wondered about the benefits after seeing these pictures and reading the Gunblast article.

I am thinking that there is little benefit to the LC9 if it doesn't fit in my pocket like the LCP. If I need a holster, then I might as well continue carrying the (perfect) Sig P6.

Comments or suggestions on in-the-pocket carry for the LC9?

Here is Jeff Quin's excellent Gunblast article and pictures
http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-LC9.htm

Dave

 

[thumbs]

Dave

Yeah I'm in the same boat. I would like a little more power. The problem is, again, the size. The LGS I went to yesterday didn't have a LC9 but the Glock 26 is in the ball park. Just a tad longer and a little shorter width wise, reasonably close. Really not a back pocket pistol. The way I figure it if I can't carry in my back pocket and need to carry at the waist the size really isn't that critical. I will have to wait and see the real thing though before I make a final decision.

They did have a Kahr pm9 that would work in the back pocket but it's a lot of cash. From what I read the reviews are spotty. For the cost I would expect GREAT reviews.
Anyone have any thoughts on the pm9?

 

[Glupy]

Dave

The way I figure it if I can't carry in my back pocket and need to carry at the waist the size really isn't that critical.

Anyone have any thoughts on the pm9?

Well said, better than me anyway.

I think that the $650 cost of the PM9 makes me wait to see the new Sig 290 and the new Kimber Solo. Every Sig I ever owned was perfect. Never owned a Kimber.

Dave