Revisiting the Ruger LC9

As I was getting dressed this morning and putting on my compact XD-9 I started thinking about all the 9mm's I have, their features and when and why I carry them.

I like them for concealed carry. Pure and simple.

The round is big enough if the frame is small enough for the combo of small size, big enough kick.

The Ruger LC9 is an example of the new batch of concealed carry firearms hitting the market. The LC9 is a thin, single stack 9mm pistol.  The LC9 is a double-action only, hammer-fired pistol that is slightly larger than its very popular .380 ACP cousin, the LCP or the Kel-Tec P3-AT.

I like the sights on the LC9 better than most pistols of this size, using a three-dot system.  It's really small and designed for CC with a barrel length is a touch over 3”, width of less than one inch and the unloaded weight is about 17 ounces. It also includes a manual safety, magazine safety and loaded chamber indicator which provides visual and feel check that chamber is loaded without slide racking.

The initial problem issues it had seem to have been resolved.

--I have seen it at the Nations Gun Show for less than $400!


Old NFO said...

I'm not sure about them... I don't like the fact that the failures have never been truly identified.

Bubblehead Les. said...

Should have addressed this when you posted it, but with Life getting in the way... here is my dilemma with this new trend in small single stacks : why do it? Here's my argument against it. A) Sticking with the Rugers only, we find the LCP in .380 runs 5.16" x 3.6", weighs 9.4 oz empty, and holds 6+1 rounds max. Great little Pocket Pistol, does exactly what it was designed to do. B) The LC9 in 9mm is 6.00" x 4.5", weighs 17.1 oz empty, yet only holds 7+1 rounds. Twice the weight for 1 more round? C) The SR9c is 6.85" x 4.6" (almost the same Grip Length as the LC9), weighs 23.4 oz empty, yet has a 17 + 1 capacity.

Yes, the grip on the SR9c is a little fatter (as are all Double Stacks), but its "Protrusion to the Rear of the Vest" is almost the same. The length is a bit longer on the SR9c, but it's not riding so deep you need a crane to get it out of your IWB. Yes, loaded, it'll be probably about 10 oz. heavier, but you could put in the 10 +1 mag, and leave the 17 rounders on your offside.

And here is my biggest Pet Peeve with this "Single Stack Slim Down" trend. If I get an LC9 and 2 extra mags for CCW, I have 21 rounds total on my Body maximum. If I go with the SR9c, I have a 31 round minimum ( using nothing but 10 rounders + 1) up to 52 rounds maximum using all 17 rounders, plus 1. As Clint Smith has said, "Do you expect the Ammo Fairy to do a Resupply in the midst of a Firefight?" The Goblins are running in Packs, Brother Miller. That's why my Revolver Days are over. Not enough Ammo in a J-Frame to make it worth carrying.

One final argument: Remember when they passed the "Hi-Cap" magazine ban in the 90's? Something tells me that the Gun Companies are making these "Slim Downed" pistols so that they won't be caught like last time, scrambling to retool their Product Line. I know Smith was P.O.'d because most of their 3rd. Gen. Pistols were one or two rounds over the limit. So this might be a "Justin Case" move on their part?

It's not an anti-Ruger thing, it's the whole "Slim Nine" trend that bothers me. Something else to discuss in Pittsburgh over some Adult Beverages.

JB Miller said...

Les, I am with you. I carry my Glock 21 when I can. Sometimes It's better to have my Kel-tec .380 than nothing at all.

I also like them as possible backup guns.

And yes, cold beverages and conversation in Pittsburgh!