Ruger LC9

Yesterday, as Shelley noted on Gun Nuts, Ruger announced their new LC9 pistol.  Obviously, the internet went bananas with reactions ranging from “ho-hum” to “OMFG ANOTHER KEL-TEC RIPOFF!!!!!ELEVEN” and the more reasonable “they will probably sell a lot of these”.  Having spent some quality time with a lot of Ruger products recently, including their excellent SR9c and SR40 pistols, I wanted to add my thoughts on the LC9.  The first thing I want to address is that this isn’t a Kel-Tec “ripoff” any more than the Taurus TC9 or whatever it’s called is.  The Ruger LC9 was developed specifically because people wanted a larger, more powerful version of the LCP chambered in 9mm.  Ruger delivered on that promise with the LC9.  The second thing I want to talk about is the manual safety.  People seem to not like it.  That’s cool, you don’t have to use it.  There is a weird misconception that you need to use every safety device that your pistol comes with.  Down this path lies madness.  I don’t use the safety on my SR9c ever, and I don’t use the safety on a Beretta 92FS for anything other than a decocker.  If you don’t like it, don’t use it.

As far as looks go, it’s actually not a bad looking gun, and it appears to have decent sights on it.  That being said, I personally am not really interested in this gun.  The presence of a magazine disconnect safety is a big ol’ turnoff for me; I hope that it’s as easily removed as the one in the SR-series of pistols.  This is my personal opinion, I just don’t see 7+1 rounds of 9mm as a really significant improvement over 5 rounds of .38 Special +P or 7+1 of .380.  Yes, I know that 9mm is objectively better than a .380, but this gun is a little too large for a pocket gun, and if I’m carrying a gun on my belt it might as well be the Ruger SR9c, where I can get 17+1 pretty easily.

I like the gun, and I like the concept.  Co-blogger Shelley will be getting one to review, and hopefully our friends at Crimson Trace will be getting a Laser Guard set up for it in a hurry, since this is a definitely a pistol that would benefit from a laser.  I do think Ruger is going to sell a ton of these, specifically because they’re an item that’s been requested by the customer.  I hope to see this be a successful item for them!

24 comments for “Ruger LC9

  1. January 4, 2011 at 08:36

    I have mixed feelings, as an LCP owner. I see the two biggest drawbacks of the LCP as caliber and sights, and its greatest strength is its size. Since they made it too big for the pocket (I think), I’m not really interested.

    My big question is-can I get these sights put onto the slide of my LCP?

  2. Jeff
    January 4, 2011 at 08:41

    ‘just don’t use the safety’ is fine an a range toy. For a carry gun, not so much. I don’t want anything that could stop it from going bang when I press the trigger.

    • aczarnowski
      January 4, 2011 at 08:49

      +1

      Mechanisms fail regardless of whether you use them or not. Having them there is just an extra table for Murphy to pull his chair up to.

    • Jason
      January 4, 2011 at 09:57

      +2. Not only that, but it’s yet another protrusion to make it slightly thicker and less comfortable to carry. Not a huge issue, but the whole point of a DAO semi-auto like this is simplicity and flatness. If I’m going to go to the extra effort, I’ll carry something with a fine single action trigger.

      • January 4, 2011 at 10:43

        I think the safety is a concession to the same madness that made S&W put one on the Bodyguard .380 as well.

        • January 4, 2011 at 14:35

          Another +1 All well-and-good for a range-toy, but I do not want an ignored feature that can render the gun useless. I agree, a Beretta 92 is best carried with hammer down safety off….but there is nothing stopping that safety from working its way on during your travels, or during the draw stroke.

          So even if you don’t use it, to prevent you from doing some problem solving if your gun behaves funny you would still need a finger-sweep to confirm the safety position on the gun.

          I’m willing to make concessions on guns like the CZ-82 or older CZ-75s where the safety blocks the hammer, so it won’t move if the hammer is down.

  3. aczarnowski
    January 4, 2011 at 08:48

    They’ll sell a ton of these I agree. There are more than a few people that want a Kahr PM9 but can’t bring themselves to spend the $ or are leery of Kahr’s reputation. The LC9 is squarely in the PM9’s playing field and there aren’t a lot of other quality options there.

    I’ve been a PM9 fanboi here before and I still am. I lurv my PM9. Having said that, I would’ve looked seriously at the LC9 if it was available two years ago. It’s MSRP is well under a _used_ PM9.

    The only thing I would like more is a LC9/PM9 long slide. While I can carry it in the pocket (generally rear) I mostly carry IWB. A bit more barrel I could easily hide. It’s the grip print I want to limit and single stack 6+1 9mms fit the bill nicely for me.

    • January 4, 2011 at 11:57

      A longer barrel is an interesting idea, but I don’t think the target audience for this gun would go for it. they’ve been conditioned to think that a compact carry gun has to be compacted in all directions.

  4. Dan
    January 4, 2011 at 09:24

    A good, well-reasoned post!!!

    Love my SR9c!

    Dan

  5. David Fiorito
    January 4, 2011 at 09:27

    Carrying anything bigger than a single stack 9mm is not an option for me given the way I dress. Even the SR9c would pattern on my shirt. The LCP is way too small for my hands so that is out. For folks like me, the LC9, Walther PPS, Kahr P9 or PM9 are ideal for all day carry.

    • Sandotex5
      January 25, 2011 at 19:33

      Agree– I have small hands but the LCP still felt too small and toy-like for me. Sig p238 perfect size for pocket and shoots like a dream but mine has been a little finicky. Something about the Kahr grip just doesn’t feel right for me (personal preference). Agree that LC9 looks like nice option. Would love to see a Sig p238-like 9mm. The metal frame should be able to absorb 9mm I would think.

  6. Jesse
    January 4, 2011 at 09:43

    I was looking at a Kel Tec PF9 for a while now but I keep hesitating due to the somewhat spotty nature of Kel Tec in general. I was looking at the Walther PPS and Kahrs but I keep getting put off because of their much higher price. For me this gun is most definitely a buy.

  7. Dwight
    January 4, 2011 at 16:11

    Just not that impressed of the new Rugers lately. I think I prefer S&W for anything larger than a 22lr. (semi-auto)

    Although, I adore my P90 and P95. I just can’t get accurate with the newer guns from Ruger.

  8. January 4, 2011 at 17:50

    The Ruger LC9 was developed specifically because people wanted a larger, more powerful version of the LCP chambered in 9mm.

    Which is the reason for the PF-9 as well. It’s actually quite clever of Ruger to have someone debug the technology first. :)

    As for pocket carry, based on my experience with the similar-sized Sccy 9mm, yes, it can be concealed in the front pocket of a pair of dress pants, but not much else is going to fit in there with it.

    • VolGrad
      January 5, 2011 at 06:54

      I think it’ll work in a front pocket as my LCP is so small it sometimes feels a little lost. Only time will tell.

      As far as … “but not much else is going to fit in there with it” … nothing else should be in there with it anyway.

      • January 5, 2011 at 12:35

        Agreed. If you’ve got a gun in your pocket nothing else should be in that pocket with it. ever

        Except a holster of course.

    • Klingon00
      January 5, 2011 at 18:19

      If you can fit a .38 snub in your pocket, the Kel-Tec pf-9 will fit better. Shorter, thinner and lighter. It also has 7 1 9mm which is more powerful than either .380 or .38.

  9. 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

  10. Rob
    January 6, 2011 at 17:59

    I had a kel-tec pf9 that made light primer strikes. Ill spend a little extra for Ruger quality and service even tho its a little heavier. Also was the OMFG reference really necessary?

  11. Sandotex5
    January 25, 2011 at 19:19

    As someone who must pocket carry at work, I’m very interested in this gun. So far I love my sig p238 (shoots awesome but had a recent slide lock issue) but I’d prefer to have a little more firepower. My dress pants pocket can accommodate something a little bit bigger. Love my Springfield XD sc40 but it’s too thick and .40 kicks a bit too much for me in a smaller gun. Not a revolver guy, just my preference. Can’t wait!

Comments are closed.