41 comments for “Ruger launches its new LC9

  1. January 3, 2011 at 09:25

    I thought it wasn’t going to be announced for another hour and a half!

    Ahh well, they just made a few folks I know happy. 9mm compact single stacks like that are what folks are wanting, something bigger than a .380, but the same form factor.

    • January 3, 2011 at 17:57

      Kind of makes you wonder why the gun companies didn’t just skip the whole tiny .380 craze and just work on engineering small 9mm pistols like this in the first place.

  2. January 3, 2011 at 09:28

    Ha! Called it!

  3. Freiheit
    January 3, 2011 at 09:29

    I’m sure someone else wanted to know too, found a link to compare to the G26 – http://www.glock.com/english/glock26_tech.htm

    The Ruger is smaller than the Glock in all dimensions except height. I hope this means that you get a longer grip on the Ruger as opposed to the two finger grip you have on a G26.

  4. Jason
    January 3, 2011 at 09:31

    Yet another copy of a Kel-Tec, with nicer plastic, but bigger and heavier and with an additional unnecessary safety. Ruger should just buy Kel-Tec and turn it into their official R&D wing. They could save the trouble of copying, they could go through the birthing pains both companies seem to have when bringing new products to market once, and with Ruger’s manufacturing capacity, the guns might actually get into production in a reasonable time frame.

    • Dann in Ohio
      January 3, 2011 at 11:00

      I have the Kel-Tec 3AT and the 9mm, the LCP and the SR9c… no comparison on quality, fit and finish – Ruger wins hands down. LCP worked right out of the box. All three of my Kel-Tec’s needed work and breaking in for 100% reliability. kel-Tec is still a good gun, but not equal to Ruger’s offerings – in my opinion after several hundred round or more through all of them.

  5. Jeff
    January 3, 2011 at 09:42

    Ugh, I hadn’t noticed the safety. Why do they keep doing that? Thumb safeties are for single action guns with 2lb triggers, not striker fired guns.

    • Freiheit
      January 3, 2011 at 10:39

      Because most people who pocket carry haven’t gotten the memo about proper pocket carry still needing a holster.

    • January 3, 2011 at 10:49

      Practical application aside, safeties work as a marketing tactic. A lot of new and inexperienced gun owners think that *everything* needs a safety because they don’t understand nuances such as trigger pull that we find obvious. I have a lot of customers who hesitate to buy M&Ps and Glocks because they lack an external safety, I even had one lady who wouldn’t shoot our Beretta 96D because there was no external safety.

      For those of us who understand that we are not going to ND a DA gun in a holster some safeties seem absurd, but much like the gun itself an external safety can represent a security blanket for the uneducated.

      • Jeff
        January 3, 2011 at 11:00

        Good points. I wish Ruger would take a page from S&W’s playbook and bring the proper one out first like the M&P though. It’s not like they’re above copying ideas. ;-)

      • Dann in Ohio
        January 3, 2011 at 16:16

        I think CA and MD laws have more to do with the safety than marketing tactics for new gun owners… just my thought.

    • Tom
      January 3, 2011 at 13:11

      So that they can sell in in CA. I’ll bet dollars to donuts that’s the only reason. Purely marketing and sales driven.

      • Jeff
        January 3, 2011 at 13:14

        What are CA’s requirements? Glock is on their approved list.

        Do they have two levels of approval like we’re stuck with in MA?

      • Ladyfox
        January 3, 2011 at 17:58

        Doubtful since the only Handgun Roster safety requirement is a magazine disconnect and loaded chamber indicator last I checked according to California Penal Code Section 12126. And besides, outside of a few counties asking for a CCW licence goes over about as well as a fart in an elevator. -_-

    • Jon
      January 3, 2011 at 14:00

      I would be extremely hesitant to purchase a carry gun without a safety. My only “carry gun” without a safety is my Ruger Alaskan. I made an exception there because I needed something for bear/moose protection and there are many more options out there in a revolver. The trigger pull is sufficiently heavy that I am not overly concerned with the lack of a safety on that gun. A semiauto is a whole ‘nother story.

      I purchased an SR9 a while back and I didn’t really do my homework first; I got some incorrect info and purchased it thinking it was a DA and was disappointed to find out that it was a striker fire with a really light trigger pull. IMHO, a carry gun should have a heavy trigger pull which is why I was looking for a double action. (The Glock style “trigger safety” seems pretty useless to me – chances are anything that can pull the trigger is likely to also disengage that safety.) The safety is what saved the SR9 for me – no way I’d carry that gun without the safety engaged.

      If you don’t like the safety, then don’t flip the lever up – I’m glad to see it and I forsee an LC9 in my near future.

      • Jeff
        January 3, 2011 at 15:16

        “If you don’t like the safety, then don’t flip the lever up”

        Are you personally going to guarantee that it’ll never get flipped up accidentally? I don’t want it because I want the gun to go bang if I pull the trigger every single time.

        I think you fall right in to the pattern that Shelley outlined. I’ve heard the old saw about dropping the mag in a fight, but no one has ever been able to show me a citation.

        If, as you said it does on the SR9, the mag disconnect drops right out, I’ll withdraw my objection. Hopefully they’ll build one without the safety too.

        I don’t think a carry gun should have a heavy trigger, because it makes it harder to shoot accurately. The proper way to avoid firing isn’t a heavy trigger pull, it’s not pulling the trigger.

  6. Joe
    January 3, 2011 at 09:55

    I predict problems with the safety. That happens when you wedge something unnecessary onto an existing design.

  7. January 3, 2011 at 10:27

    Gosh, I wonder their inspiration was for this pistol:

    Ruger LC9
    Capacity: 7+1
    Barrel Length: 3.12″
    Length: 6.00″
    Width: 0.90″
    Height: 4.50″
    Weight: 17.10 oz.
    Sights: Adjustable 3-Dot

    Kel-Tec PF-9
    Capacity: 7 +1
    Overall Length: 5.85”
    Height: 4.3”
    Width: 0.88”
    Weight Empty: 14.7 oz.
    Weight: 18 oz.

    • JOE JOE
      January 8, 2011 at 22:43

      Thats funny. the dimensions are totally different.
      p3at was copied. yes. and improved. its like the 1911. copied many times over. it was a good template.
      Lc9 looks nothing like pf-9. just a big LCP or if it makes you feel better, a big p3at.

  8. Jeff
    January 3, 2011 at 11:05

    Argh, it has a mag disconnect too.

    • Jon
      January 3, 2011 at 14:13

      A mag disconnect has some advantages in close quarter situations. In a situation where you may be about to lose your firearm to the bad guy, hitting the mag release can buy you a few extra seconds. This has actually happened and mag disconnects have saved lives. Law enforcement personnel seem to favor a mag disconnect for this reason. I haven’t done any research into this, but I assume that the lack of a mag disconnect may have also saved lives. (At least I hope that is the case, given the amount of griping I constantly hear about mag disconnects…)

      This is more of a personal decision than a black and white design issue. Some people don’t like them but they are clearly an advantage for other folks. It depends on your circumstances, and only you can make the call as to whether you think a mag disconnect is an advantage or a disadvantage in YOUR personal situation. Please realize that your situation is not the same as that of everyone else. Of course, this is a difficult call because chances are any potential conflict that you anticipate is likely to be much different than the way you pictured it.

      On the SR9, disabling the mag disconnect takes about 30 seconds – it will drop right out of the gun. IIRC, you don’t even need any tools to do it. Possibly it will be the same for the LC9.

      • Sendarius
        January 4, 2011 at 03:05

        If I am in a situation where I am about to lose my gun to the bad guy, I am NEVER going to hit the magazine release.

        I am going to hit the TRIGGER!

        • VolGrad
          January 5, 2011 at 07:16

          I wish it were that simple. Imagine a LEO scuffling with a perp. The perp attempts a gun grab and manages to disable the retention device on the LEO’s holster. The two are now struggling over the weapon and let’s say the LEO is losing out.

          Do you pull the trigger? The gun is still in the holster or in the process of coming out. Hitting the mag release could save the LEO’s life.

          This is exactly what happened here where I live about 2 years ago. A off-duty LEO was working security (in uniform) at a local grocery store. The same store was the scene of a nearly fatal stabbing when another officer was attacked by a mentally unstable man. Anyway the LEO was approached by a customer and told another customer known to them was “wanted”. When he went to investigate the person started scuffling with him. He was able to drop the mag before losing his weapon. The perp pulled the trigger on him but no BANG. The fact he was carrying an old grand-fathered in S&W with a mag disconnect rather than the new issued GLOCKs saved his life.

          Now, as a civilian CCW person I have no use for mag disconnects. I just wanted to point out why some LEOs like them. I also conceded there are prob just as many (or more) times a mag disconnect caused someone to lose their life.

  9. Al
    January 3, 2011 at 11:12

    Some states require a manual safety, and it’s easier to produce just one model. Also, some striker fired guns are fully cocked, single action, with a very light trigger, such as the Taurus PT709. It’s one gun I would not carry without a manual safety.

  10. Brice
    January 3, 2011 at 11:30

    Swing and a miss. If you must have a magazine disconnect, make a model without it. When I pull the trigger I want it to go bang, unless it’s not in battery. :)

    • January 3, 2011 at 12:33

      This model does not have a magazine disconnect in it, according to Ruger’s website.

      • Jeff
        January 3, 2011 at 13:12

        The press release says:
        “The slide locks open on an empty magazine and the external slide stop is easy to reach and manipulate for positive firearm functioning. A single-sided manual safety and a magazine disconnect are additional features of the Ruger LC9. A California-approved loaded chamber indicator allows for immediate visual and tactile confirmation that the chamber is loaded. A pivoting external extractor provides reliable extraction of the 9mm cases.”

        It’s not mentioned on the spec sheet, but it’s not on the spec sheet of the Mk3 either.

        • January 3, 2011 at 14:01

          You’re right, I just re-read the presser and it does say that it has a mag disconnect. As much as I like my SR9c and SR40, that’s a bit of fail.

  11. January 3, 2011 at 13:55

    Oh. Hey. Look. Something Walther has had on the market for two years already (and others have had years before that), only now with a Bonus Superfluous Safety!

    What was that about “doesn’t actually improve on any of the products on the market already”, again?

  12. Charles
    January 3, 2011 at 14:37

    There is a tremendous wailing and knashing of teeth at one of the Ruger forums over this thing, but it seems to be a decent offering as far as I can tell.

    I want one. It’s big enough to get a decent grip on and small enough to conceal all kinds of ways, it’s thin, it’s chambered in a respectable round and it has decent firepower, it’s inexpensive and it’s made by a respected manufacturer. What’s not to like?

    And a copy of Kel-Tec? Bunk!

  13. JR
    January 3, 2011 at 14:46

    Ruger has never copied anything! I’ve seen posts like this for the last couple years and I think most come from people that wished they had waited to purchase the better gun. I’ve never once responded to these posts, I just don’t like to argue. Besides it’s pointless because there are no grounds for the other side of the argument. The only thing I’ve ever seen is “looks like, seems like, feels like”
    Ruger is a publicly held and traded company, one of only two in the world. The rules and regs a public company has to follow would not just make it stupid or copy write infringement, it would make it illegal!
    If it were a copy of any kind of Kel-Tec, they would have sued long ago. Of all the gun companies Ruger has the deepest pockets. They have enough cash on hand to purchase all their stock back.
    Ruger never borrows money to make a new product, they have it in the bank. In the 61 years Ruger has existed there has never been a year without a strong profit, few companies can say that especially firearms companies.
    So where are the law suites from all this copying? If Ruger copied a gun the stock would tank, the US Government would have Ruger up on charges on behalf of the stockholders. And the doors would soon close at Sturm Ruger Co., Inc.
    I’ve owned many thousands of shares in Ruger for many years as well as shares in the other public firearms company. In addition I own a very large collection of their products. I know a lot about Ruger and if they were copying other manufactures products, aside from what I’ve mentioned, the stock would tank and there would be ten’s of thousands of shareholders pounding on the companies’ president’s door!

    • Chuck Jennings
      January 4, 2011 at 09:14

      JR,

      They are copies of the Kel-Tec designs. A side by side comparison of the guns and their internals makes that obvious.

      The reason that Ruger has not been taken to court over copying the designs is that there is nothing patentable in the Kel-Tec designs. This fact has been brought up in many discussions about the LCP in the past.

  14. 1911Man
    January 3, 2011 at 14:56

    @JR

    Please explain the GROUNDS on which Ruger would be sued or otherwise be “up on charges” if they copied another manufacturer’s gun.

  15. Thomas
    January 3, 2011 at 15:15

    Now, now, everyone—it can’t be a copy of the Kel-Tec PF-9! After all–Ruger’s version is heavier, longer, taller, and wider.

    Though it does hold the same number of rounds. :)

    Ruger makes quality guns, that’s true. Unfortunately for this particular market niche, I think they are going to find that Kel-Tec has fixed their initial quality-control problems with the PF-9, and current examples of it work very well.

    People may buy it for the safety, though. (I’m not sure why, but apparently some people believe that is important. I’d really like to know what factual basis that belief has, though.)

  16. JR
    January 3, 2011 at 15:37

    1911 Man
    You asked a question that could fill volumes of print. In my post I wanted to also mention patents along with copy write materials. One or both are almost always applied for in a company like Ruger.
    You are a 1911 man, well anyone can make a 1911. Protections for products vary and I’m not going to write several pages on this issue. Do your own Google search and learn through reading. I’ve done the work, as an engineer.
    I’ll leave it at this, if you’ve been politically aware the past few years many public companies have been brought up on charges for their illegal actions.
    As for Kel-Tec, if their products were protected and they felt these products were close enough to be copies and that they had a strong case they would sue to keep their protections inforce for not only two firearms but their entire line of products.

  17. January 3, 2011 at 17:52

    It’s perfectly fair competition to copy a competitor’s unprotected design. If there was anything protectable in Kel-Tec’s designs, they would have applied for the patents.

  18. January 3, 2011 at 21:35

    <If it were a copy of any kind of Kel-Tec, they would have sued long ago…. The rules and regs a public company has to follow would not just make it stupid or copy write infringement, it would make it illegal!

    Well, it’s probably best that you don’t respond to your allegations, because a little knowledge of copyRIGHT laws goes a long way here.

    Disclaimer: I am not, nor will I ever be a lawyer. However, I did make my living selling copyrighted material for 10+ years so I have some idea of how this might work, but I may be wrong here, so caveat emptor.

    That’s Latin for “Watch yer ass.” :)

    The patents on the locked breech semi-auto have long-since expired, which is why you see so many .45 Auto’s out there. Anyone can make a copy of the .45 because everything about the .45 is up for grabs. Same with pump shotguns or bolt actions or lever guns or over/unders.

    But say you wanted to make a screw-by-screw copy of the Glock. You can’t, because how Glocks look, act and feel is the property of Glock, even if they say “S+W” on it. If you want to make a striker-fired auto LIKE a Glock, go for it, just don’t make it TOO close to how a Glock operates, or they will sue you.

    Same thing here. Ruger liked the PF-9, so rather than make a direct copy of it, they added “enhancements” (sarcasm intended) like a magazine disconnect and manual safety. Kel-Tec can’t go after Ruger now because the minute the judge asks “Does yours do this?”, they’ve lost. Same thing with my Sccy CPX-1 (which also has a manual safety), although it’s interesting to note Sccy lost a copyright infringement suit, this time to Skyy vodka, who forced them to change their name from Skyy to Sccy.

  19. January 4, 2011 at 00:15

    It’s perfectly fair competition to copy a competitor’s unprotected design. If there was anything protectable in Kel-Tec’s designs, they would have applied for the patents.

  20. David Fiorito
    January 4, 2011 at 07:09

    It has a decent price, but it doesn’t really have anything that would persuade me to give up my Kahr P9.

  21. January 5, 2011 at 06:18

    Here is a pic of the LC9 with an LCP overlay:

    http://gunmart.blogspot.com/2011/01/ruger-lc9.html

  22. D
    January 9, 2011 at 22:50

    I bought my wife the LCP 380 pistol for a pocket pistol for its reliability. I could have chosen KelTec or several other manufacturers in .380. I never wanted to be in a position to have to say to her “well I know it mis-fired right now… but let’s just keep shooting it. You’ll be able to rely on it… someday…” That is not what these kind of pistols are for. They are for last-ditch – bet-your-life use. If the LC9 works every time with a wide variety of commercial ammo, is reasonably accurate at 15 feet and it is affordable… then Ruger has a potential winner.

Comments are closed.