Vote for or against the LC9

[les265]

The LC9 looks like a nice gun and there is definitely a need for thinner subcompact 9mm handguns. I bought a Kahr CW9 about 3 years ago and it is every thing that I want in a CCW plus it doesn't have all of the unnecessary safety crap to protect me from myself.

 

[chopprs]

WOW!!!.......polls sure say a lot sometimes, don't they!

Is it possible that Ruger made a mistake here? Almost half of pollsters on a RUGER FORUM say they will not buy one.

 

[revhigh]

Almost half of pollsters on a RUGER FORUM say they will not buy one.

Worse yet ... only 8 of 46 say they definitely WILL buy one ....

REV

 

[hdonlybob]

Probably good for some folks, but not for me.

Looks like a nice little auto, but not my cup of tea.
Probably will fill a good nitch for a lot of folks though..
HD

 

[Donaldjr1969]

Probably good for some folks, but not for me.

Looks like a nice little auto, but not my cup of tea.
Probably will fill a good nitch for a lot of folks though..
HD

Same with me. I shot a LCP and I was not really impressed with its trigger pull. When I am able to get a compact handgun it will be either an LCR or a S&W 442/642. Both have excellent trigger pulls with the nod going to the LCR. Like others have said, if it were a bit smaller, it may have more appeal. It is, IMO, too close in size to the SR9c. The question here is do you want a striker fired or hammer fired pistol?

I think that the big issue here is not so much the pistol itself. Rather the marketing staff probably had a bit too much Red Bull that day and overhyped the pistol. Had there been less hype and none of this "the next firearm you absolutely MUST own" talk, it probably would be better received. People do not like being told what is best for them and what they must have.

 

[Tam 212]

Fortunately for Ruger, the majority of the folks who are going to buy LC9s are likely *not* on this forum. :|

I do wonder if it'll cannibalize LCP sales to a certain extent. I suppose the size difference might make the difference, pardon the pun.

 

[Blizzard]

Initially I thought I might like the LC9 for CC, but then I measured it against my SR9C - thay are almost the same size. I will wait until I can try it and the Sig P290 before I make a final decision.

 

[FergusonTO35]

If I wanted a 9X19 of that size I would buy the Kel-Tec original. The smallest 9 I would ever want is the Glock 26 or KT P-11.

 

[Clint50]

I call it a miss.....

Let me count the ways...
Magazine disconnect..
internal lock..
loaded chamber indicator...
too big.

Sigs new p290 is able to come to market without those "features"... It may be 3 ounces eavier, but its still smaller, AND has changable grip panels!

This gun just misses its mark any way you look at it.. Its too big to be a sub compact, yet too small to be a compact... It just doesnt make sense... why did they not just make it 1/2" smaller in length and height?

I'm not fond of the internal lock but the mag disc & loaded chamber ind are no big deal,especially the latter. The size concerns me so if it will not fit in my pocket as well as my LCP,that might keep me from buying one.

Preliminary pricing on the Sig P290 is going to be over $750. That's almost twice what an LC9 will cost and I do not like the Sig's laser sight set-up,at all. My LCP w/CT laser sights is much better,IMO.

 

[mdmaysp95]

This pistol will be in my left side vest pocket as soon as its in the stores.

 

[BulkAmmo]

If I'm a stockholder of Ruger, this is a great gun.

+1

I don't see myself picking up a LC9. It might be something I would look at later on if I can find a used one on the cheap. I'm at the point where I have enough CC pistols to choose from and wouldn't want to have to buy any more holsters for awhile.

I do think it fits a niche though. There are quite a few people that won't carry a .380 and this might be the handgun for them. I'm not too concerned about the trigger, but I just don't need another small 9mm right now.

_________________
bulk .44 magnum ammo

 

[Knuckles]

I chose door #5 What was Ruger thinking? Total bust

Of all the guns that a company like Sturm-Ruger could have made... I give them a (D-) for thinking they had to make this one.
At best they should have slid the LC9 towards the back of the line-up for 2011 .

I still love the many model choices that we have been given by Ruger! :wink:

 

[Glupy]

The LCP fits nicely in my pocket already. The LC9 looks as if it will be too big for inside the pocket carry. If I have to go big, I might as well use a larger 9mm in a concealed carry holster.

I might change my mind once I see and fondle the LC9.

Dave

 

[pyth0n]

Competition is good. If I didn't have a Kahr P9, I would give the LC9 serious consideration.

 

[Sassi]

The LC9 is not for me. It is a half inch to long, a half inch to high and about 4 ounces to heavy. What market was Ruger hoping to woe over with this thing anyways?

 

[gig]

Problem with the small pistols is they begin to lose the advantage a pistol has over a revolver,,,,,capacity.
And the smallness makes one begin to question the reliability.

If all I have is 8 rounds, then that is not many more than a small frame revolver with 5, and the small frame pistols or revolvers offer so little accuracy that most likely they will be used in close quarters where only a few shots will be taken anyway.

I was hoping for a SR40c or a SR45.

 

[gstan1919]

The LC9 looks like a nice idea and I hope it sells good. It's just not for me.
I am waiting for the SR45

 

[chopprs]

Disagree gig! A high quality 9mm pocket sized auto will have as good or better accuracy than a standard pocket revolver (Kahr has a match grade barrel) and it is thinner thusly easier to carry. Reloading is also a primary concern in SD and unless you are a pro you will be reloading your mini auto far quicker than a revolver....this could save your life!!!

 

[rammerjammer]

I still want one. But I do need to hold one and try out its trigger first. I already have an LCP and an SR9c. If it isn't a great inbetween and is not considerably smaller than the SR9c I won't get it.

I hope it is what its billed to be. But that marketing campaign was bull and only angered me with the teases. Even though it was the gun I was hoping for, I was ticked at the manner in which they announed it.

 

[dogfood]

Well, it's not - in Ruger's words - "the next handgun I must own!"

However ... and someone pointed this out earlier ... I don't think it's targeted at most folks who make up this forum. Let's face it - most of us a rather particular about what we want and need. And if it's something we really need, we tend to already have it (Ruger or not).

The LC9 fills a gap in Ruger's product line. Whether that gap was large or small - or needed filling at all - appears to be open to debate ... a debate in which I have zero interest. From a marketing perspective, I think this product is a winner, considering it's probably targeted for the average Joe or Jane who owns one (or perhaps just a few) handguns.

I'm now just trying to get past this, hoping something interesting is announced at SHOT.

dogfood