News flash - Ruger LC9 9mm

[Just One Shot]

http://www.downrange...mm-pistol/7966/

Shipping begins Feb.1 2011

MSRP $443.00

[CampingJosh]

The first generation is already available, and it's MSRP begins at $333.

http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pistols/pf-9/

[flintlock]

I really like Ruger's guns, but did the world need another compact 9mm? A Ruger 1911 on the other hand would probably be more interesting. Except for the billboard on the side of the slide!

[blackspyder]

I'll have to handle one before I decide whether or not its worth buying. Sub-compact 9's are hard to come by especially well built ones given the .380 craze we had here.

Yes I shot a Kel-Tec, I was not impressed, nice gun, not my bag though.

[Rick O'Shay]

Yawn.

[Just One Shot]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

The first generation is already available, and it's MSRP begins at $333.

http://www.keltecweapons.com/our-guns/pistols/pf-9/

Personally I carry a Kahr PM9 when I'm in the 9mm mood.

[group17]

Originally Posted by flintlock

I really like Ruger's guns, but did the world need another compact 9mm? A Ruger 1911 on the other hand would probably be more interesting. Except for the billboard on the side of the slide!

Does the world need another 1911?
I'll take another compact 9mm any day.

[Helix_FR]

So they took the LCP and and SR9C and put it in a blender and they came up with this. Hmmmm. Well if its as good as the SR9 seems to be then I'll be happy.

[noslolo]

They should have done this first! I know that they wanted to jump on the .380 band wagon, but a nice small 9mm, now that fits my bill a whole lot better. Well really, I'm happy with my CW40 and thats as small as I have ever gone.

[Boris]

Rugers are great guns, but I see no reason why they need to copy the Keltec and charge soooo much more.

I almost got a LCP from a buddy used but he wanted more than a new P3AT for it and my P32 serves me just fine. Maybe if the price was more inline with what the gun was. The extra $$ is paying for the name. JMO.......

edit: and it does not have a rail...........

[graehaven]

What a surprise! Another Kel-tec rip-off! Way to go Ruger. Can't wait to see the recall on this one.

[CampingJosh]

Originally Posted by graehaven

What a surprise! Another Kel-tec rip-off! Way to go Ruger. Can't wait to see the recall on this one.

Yeah, it's a bit surprising that they can take something that already works, copy it in a way that requires a recall, and still be labeled as "a real quality product, unlike that junk Kel-tec." Just my two cents...

[graehaven]

Clearly a rip-off of the P-11, and with less capacity. Heavier too (surprise). LOL

I hope they get sued.

[Boris]

Originally Posted by CampingJosh

Yeah, it's a bit surprising that they can take something that already works, copy it in a way that requires a recall, and still be labeled as "a real quality product, unlike that junk Kel-tec." Just my two cents...

I hate when gun companies just copy. Just look at S&W. All they make is Glocks and 1911s. What happened in their design department? If I were the big guy I would fire anyone not skilled enough to design a S&W and just put plans for copies on my desk. They make more variations of Glocks than Glock does for cryin out loud. If Ruger can put a great gun like a SR9 out, then have to copy another design that is more than a $100.00 less... What is going on? Why not get original and do some work and not just copy copy copy.

I seen a gun called a hellcat in SGnews that is guess what, a copy of a P3AT. So that makes 4 companies (atleast) that makes Keltec pistols......

If I wanted a Keltec, I will buy a keltec and save some $$ doing it! A Ruger Keltec is of no interest to me unless I can get one cheaper and it is post recall made...... JMO folks..

[hogger129]

If I bought a small 9mm, I'd probably go with one of the older Smith & Wessons. One of my dad's friends, who was a detective carried a S&W 39 and swore by it. He also said the 59 was worth looking at too. I don't know if they make them anymore or not.

I'd go with a S&W 39 or I'd look at a Springfield EMP. Glocks are nice too, but I don't have much experience with them.

[G-man]

I picked up the LC9 and its a great pistol. No problems whats so ever clean chambering anf ejection little kick and nice grouping at 15, 30, 50 ft No RECALLs well designed light and a nice pocket piece. Way to Go ruger Like Always a nice Quality Firearm.

[Juker]

Hey G-Man, welcome to the forum.

I see you're from Vermont. I've read it's the only state that allows open carry and concealed carry without any type of permit - ?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

[W. Bill]

I recently purchased an LC-9. Initially, overall loved the gun, looks, feel, sight picture and accuracy. Like most DOA pistols, the trigger pull is L-O-N-G but predictable. Didn’t like the small thumb safety, loaded chamber indicator, internal lock or the fact that the trigger will not function without magazine installed. Without the magazine installed, the trigger just moves on the trigger spring, like in neutral (more on that later). The internal lock requires a special “key” that has to go through a hole in the frame (not centered well on the gun I received, so somewhat difficult to use). When the internal lock is engaged, the trigger will not function since it, again, goes into a sort of “neutral” like when the magazine is not installed (note this is the second “safety feature” that causes the trigger to not function by putting it in “neutral”). Took the gun to the range to put 100 initial rounds through; first 89 rounds were flawless and the accuracy was very good. Round 90 Failed-To-Fire. Tap and rack did not solve the problem, second tap and rack did not solve the problem. Unloaded and field stripped; could not see a problem. The symptom was a “free-wheeling” trigger like the trigger was in “neutral”. Nothing else except the trigger would move; no internal contact with anything else except the trigger spring. No resistance, no clicks, no hammer fall, nothing. As far as the trigger is concerned, the pistol was in the same condition as if there were no magazine installed and/or the internal lock was engaged. However, the magazine WAS installed and the internal lock WAS NOT engaged. Sent the pistol to Ruger and they returned it with a replaced hammer catch, hammer spring and manual safety plunger. They reported firing 40 rounds with no malfunctions. They provided no information on whether the problem is permanently fixed with redesigned, different or better parts. As far as I can tell, they replaced the broken parts with the same, albeit new, parts that failed. Here’s the question in my mind: With 40 rounds fired, is this pistol good for another 49?; or, 149? I conceal carry 7-days a week and I will not risk my life on this pistol’s future dependability. It is one thing to have a misfeed, jam or failure to fire (all of which can/should be corrected with a tap and rack); but, to have a complete fire arm failure after 89 rounds is unacceptable. Period. P.S. I love my other three Rugers and I’m not slamming Ruger. It is obvious from other posts that there are many LC-9 success stories and satisfied owners. All I know at this point is that and mine and one other LC-9 that I’m aware of quit running unexpectedly.

[Double D]

Bill, I can feel your pain. I would never consider carrying something that performed like that. I bought a new 1911 commander and have experimented with it using 4 different brand magazines and about 6 different ammo makers and a mixture of hollow points and ball ammo, and have run about 600 rounds thru it without one single failure. It has just now begun to earn the name "everyday carry gun". Some of the smaller guns require a break in period and then they are OK. I would run quite a bit thru it before I carried it, and even then I may still be wary. Good luck!

[AmmoForSale.com]

As much as I like the better fit and finish of the LC9 vs the PF9. I still see myself getting a PF-9 instead. I don't want or need any of the added safety features. If Ruger offered a simple no frills version I would pick it up. In the current model I'm going to have to pass.

W. Bill issue was something I was concerned about already. While all firearms can fail. The ones with more moving parts tend to fail more often.

__________________
9mm ammo for sale

[W. Bill]

Originally Posted by AmmoForSale.com

As much as I like the better fit and finish of the LC9 vs the PF9. I still see myself getting a PF-9 instead. I don't want or need any of the added safety features. If Ruger offered a simple no frills version I would pick it up. In the current model I'm going to have to pass.

W. Bill issue was something I was concerned about already. While all firearms can fail. The ones with more moving parts tend to fail more often.

__________________
9mm ammo for sale

Ammo,

Ironic that I own a PF9 (2 in fact) and was looking to "upgrade" to something of higher quality (the PF9 needs considerable "cleaning up" polishing, etc. to get it to run reliably). I was considering a Kahr PM9, Taurus 709 Slim, or Sig P290 when I saw a LC9 at a pretty good price ($359) and bought it for a look see. I'm back to considering the other three leaning toward the Sig. I have a Sig P220 .45 ACP that is fifteen years old and has never, ever, not once malfunctioned. That is what I want in a 9mm carry pistol. Your point is well taken about the extra parts. I also have a LCP and have no issues with it. It is nice and simple. Without doing any research, I assumed that the LC9 was pretty much a duplicate of its little .380 brother, but it is not. Too many additional parts in the LC9. Regards

[G-man]

Originally Posted by Juker

Hey G-Man, welcome to the forum.

I see you're from Vermont. I've read it's the only state that allows open carry and concealed carry without any type of permit - ?

Inquiring minds want to know ...

Vermont does not at this time require or issue gun permits. Some Vermont towns and cities do have local ordinances, so if you are planning on visiting, it would be wise to contact the local police chief to find information pertaining to local information.

G-man

[Juker]

Passed through there seven years ago on the way to Maine. I recall with great fondness a breakfast with Eggs Benedict at a little roadside cafe in Burlington.

[intimidator3]

Why do some of you have to knock some one elses gun or make of gun. (and probably never even held or fired one) All guns have a problem - the fit, the feel, the fail to feed, the fail to fire, the fail to eject, and the fail to have the money. Kel tec just didn't fit or feel good to me, but I ain't a gona knock it because some may like it. More later - gotta eat!!! A Wendys fish sandwich. I think it's a copy of Frischs though !!

[work2ride]

Originally Posted by W. Bill

I recently purchased an LC-9. Initially, overall loved the gun, looks, feel, sight picture and accuracy. Like most DOA pistols, the trigger pull is L-O-N-G but predictable. Didn’t like the small thumb safety, loaded chamber indicator, internal lock or the fact that the trigger will not function without magazine installed. Without the magazine installed, the trigger just moves on the trigger spring, like in neutral (more on that later). The internal lock requires a special “key” that has to go through a hole in the frame (not centered well on the gun I received, so somewhat difficult to use). When the internal lock is engaged, the trigger will not function since it, again, goes into a sort of “neutral” like when the magazine is not installed (note this is the second “safety feature” that causes the trigger to not function by putting it in “neutral”). Took the gun to the range to put 100 initial rounds through; first 89 rounds were flawless and the accuracy was very good. Round 90 Failed-To-Fire. Tap and rack did not solve the problem, second tap and rack did not solve the problem. Unloaded and field stripped; could not see a problem. The symptom was a “free-wheeling” trigger like the trigger was in “neutral”. Nothing else except the trigger would move; no internal contact with anything else except the trigger spring. No resistance, no clicks, no hammer fall, nothing. As far as the trigger is concerned, the pistol was in the same condition as if there were no magazine installed and/or the internal lock was engaged. However, the magazine WAS installed and the internal lock WAS NOT engaged. Sent the pistol to Ruger and they returned it with a replaced hammer catch, hammer spring and manual safety plunger. They reported firing 40 rounds with no malfunctions. They provided no information on whether the problem is permanently fixed with redesigned, different or better parts. As far as I can tell, they replaced the broken parts with the same, albeit new, parts that failed. Here’s the question in my mind: With 40 rounds fired, is this pistol good for another 49?; or, 149? I conceal carry 7-days a week and I will not risk my life on this pistol’s future dependability. It is one thing to have a misfeed, jam or failure to fire (all of which can/should be corrected with a tap and rack); but, to have a complete fire arm failure after 89 rounds is unacceptable. Period. P.S. I love my other three Rugers and I’m not slamming Ruger. It is obvious from other posts that there are many LC-9 success stories and satisfied owners. All I know at this point is that and mine and one other LC-9 that I’m aware of quit running unexpectedly.

I have the same problem with the ''neutral'' trigger on my recently purchased LC9. I found this thread looking for common problems on a google search. I'm really bummed, I liked this pistol A LOT for about the first 50 rounds then within 10 rounds it started having the same symptoms which led to the gun not firing at all. It's back at the gun store I bought it at. I explained to the owner who called Ruger and all they said is they will inspect it and fix it if there is a problem then send it back. I was feeling kind of nervous about the whole ''will it work when I need it'' thing then I read your story and it really bums me out. Did you keep yours? I'm ready to sell mine and get something else when I get it back. This sucks because I have always liked Ruger firearms but I can't trust this thing to save my life if I need it.