Archived Posts » 59,646,491
LC9 Mags.... Update: found a source! Update Part Deux! Mini-Review of the pistol!
9/22/2011 2:08:37 PM
I picked up an LC9 today for a decent price... I was a bit saddened to only see one mag in the box.
My FFL had stock of other various Ruger mags... but no LC9 spares.
I was told LC9 spares are pretty hard to come by.
Anyone know where I could land at least one? (if not four or five...)
Update:
Found a source for flat base mags... Cheaper Than Dirt had em for 29.97$/per (Cheaper than from Ruger directly... out of stock at shopruger.com currently)
My stash shipped same day.
Between having these in stock and having piles of HK91 alloy mags for under a buck/per in my garage thanks to them... I take back many of the hurtful things I've said about them over the years.
My FFL had stock of other various Ruger mags... but no LC9 spares.
I was told LC9 spares are pretty hard to come by.
Anyone know where I could land at least one? (if not four or five...)
Update:
Found a source for flat base mags... Cheaper Than Dirt had em for 29.97$/per (Cheaper than from Ruger directly... out of stock at shopruger.com currently)
My stash shipped same day.
Between having these in stock and having piles of HK91 alloy mags for under a buck/per in my garage thanks to them... I take back many of the hurtful things I've said about them over the years.
9/22/2011 5:01:47 PM
Cabela's had them in stock for $34.99 when I was at the store the other day.
I will wait til I can find a less expensive alternative...
I will wait til I can find a less expensive alternative...
9/22/2011 5:07:51 PM
When you get a chance to try out the LC9, post up a review. I'm seriously considering one - located locally for $359.
9/23/2011 9:11:17 AM
As a quick and dirty and not very well laid out or thought out review...
I shot 350 rounds of my reloads (125gr hardcast RNL, Wolf primer, mixed brass, 5.2gr GreenDot... for those that reload) out of the thing last night. One failure to extract in the first 50 rounds. No other failures.
I then cleaned the bore and shot 100 rounds of Speer Golddot HPs... 124 grain if I recall correctly (were unlabeled in a ziplock I had in my range bag... fairly certain they were standard pressure 124s, they're left-over issue ammo). No failures experienced.
Accuracy was very acceptable. I was able to hit 6" steel at 75' with good regularity after a few mags to get used to the trigger. At 20' it was simple to hold a good solid grouping center mass on badguy size/shape target.
I would have shot more, but my thumb was done from loading my 1 mag.
No appreciable leading of the bore and the Wolf Primers I used in that batch of reloads seem to be hard enough to not "shave" and jam the firing pin as others have found with other ammo/primers. I did find *some* shavings in the channel when I cleaned the pistol after the Speer rounds, so at least for me... it will be standard procedure to strip the slide down every cleaning and clean that channel out as a safety precaution.
In shooting/holstering/handling: I prefer the flat base mag pad. It makes the gun *just* small enough to pocket carry in a Nemesis. It is not noticeably heavier in a pocket holster than a SW642 airweight or the SW Bodyguard .380 it's replacing... not much larger than the BG380 and roughly same size as the 642, but certainly slimmer. Same overall size (roughly) as my M&P9c, but a hair slimmer... that slight difference in thickness makes a huge difference in concealability... this gun disappears just like the BG380. In a softer leather IWB designed for the M&P9c, it rides very snug to the body and is gone under a light shirt... just had to snug my belt a bit to get better retention. The hunt begins for a good IWB holster for the LC9.
The weapon is controllable but has noticeable recoil, no worse than the ultralight .380s or a snubnose revolver... probably less recoil than a snubbie with hot loads. Certainly stouter than a full size 9mm, also much stouter than the M&P9c... it is controllable though. Trigger pull is LONG and hits a wall right before it breaks... the wall seems to be a very easy place to "stage" the trigger to. It is very similar to a double action revolver shot... so if you can handle a double action revolver, this trigger pull isn't too bad.
Sights are a bit small. I'll probably replace them when aftermarkets are available. Nightsights would be a great factory option. (as would a second or third spare mag in the box.....)
Controls are intuitive to me... they are well laid out and required no thought or extra effort to work.
I really dislike the loaded chamber indicator. I'm going to try and get a spare and grind one down to flush when loaded, subsurface when chamber empty... seems to make more sense to me. And I treat every gun as loaded... I don't require an idiot bar to tell me the weapon is hot. Just ordered one from shopruger.com... so as soon as I have it in hand, I'll grind it down and replace the stock one. Did I mention I dislike the loaded chamber indicator?
My overall take... after owning, carrying and shooting the LCP, P3AT and BG380 (preferring the BG380 the most, P3AT 2nd, LCP last) this gun isn't much larger, nor is it much heavier when holstered (it is several ounces heavier than it's .380 cousins), it does offer enough improvement in BANG/SPLAT over the .380 that it's increased size and weight are easy to deal with.
When I picked this gun up, I compared it with the Keltec PF9, Kahrs CM9 and the Diamond Back DB9.
It is much slimmer than the CM9. The CM9 was way too close in size to my M&P9c for me to honestly consider it.
The LC9 is substantially larger than the DB9. The DB9 is amazingly small and seemed to have been good quality. If it's grip angle were closer to a 1911 than a right angle, I honestly probably would have a DB9 right now. It's grip angle sucks. Hard. My natural point of aim with the DB9 seemed to be about 14 feet in front of me on the floor... my wrists were very uncomfortably bent to get the gun "on target". I don't think I could ever feel truly comfortable with the DB9... shame. It is really small and light. Shockingly small for a 9mm gun in fact.
Compared to the PF9? Very similar, almost like Ruger copied the Keltec (again...
) and added a few touches to keep lawsuits at bay. The Ruger added an External Safety, Mag Drop safety and that stupid loaded chamber indicator... they also added a few ounces over the PF9. The PF9 seemed to have a slightly nicer trigger and was a touch slimmer in the grips. Very similar guns. I really like the thumb safety on the LC9... I'm used to handling 1911's so sweeping the safety down on presentation is natural and the LC9 safety, although small, is well placed. I don't see that the LC9 would be unsafe with the safety left off... the trigger pull is *LONG*, I would feel comfortable carrying it safety off in good leather. I just prefer safetys when they feel similar to the 1911's. The PF9 is a good little gun... it would have been my pick if it had a safety as nice as the Rugers.
Honestly... I picked the LC9 over the CM9 due to size/weight of the CM9. Over the DB9 due to the DB9's horrible grip angle. And over the PF9 due to the thumb safety on the LC9.
I shot 350 rounds of my reloads (125gr hardcast RNL, Wolf primer, mixed brass, 5.2gr GreenDot... for those that reload) out of the thing last night. One failure to extract in the first 50 rounds. No other failures.
I then cleaned the bore and shot 100 rounds of Speer Golddot HPs... 124 grain if I recall correctly (were unlabeled in a ziplock I had in my range bag... fairly certain they were standard pressure 124s, they're left-over issue ammo). No failures experienced.
Accuracy was very acceptable. I was able to hit 6" steel at 75' with good regularity after a few mags to get used to the trigger. At 20' it was simple to hold a good solid grouping center mass on badguy size/shape target.
I would have shot more, but my thumb was done from loading my 1 mag.
No appreciable leading of the bore and the Wolf Primers I used in that batch of reloads seem to be hard enough to not "shave" and jam the firing pin as others have found with other ammo/primers. I did find *some* shavings in the channel when I cleaned the pistol after the Speer rounds, so at least for me... it will be standard procedure to strip the slide down every cleaning and clean that channel out as a safety precaution.
In shooting/holstering/handling: I prefer the flat base mag pad. It makes the gun *just* small enough to pocket carry in a Nemesis. It is not noticeably heavier in a pocket holster than a SW642 airweight or the SW Bodyguard .380 it's replacing... not much larger than the BG380 and roughly same size as the 642, but certainly slimmer. Same overall size (roughly) as my M&P9c, but a hair slimmer... that slight difference in thickness makes a huge difference in concealability... this gun disappears just like the BG380. In a softer leather IWB designed for the M&P9c, it rides very snug to the body and is gone under a light shirt... just had to snug my belt a bit to get better retention. The hunt begins for a good IWB holster for the LC9.
The weapon is controllable but has noticeable recoil, no worse than the ultralight .380s or a snubnose revolver... probably less recoil than a snubbie with hot loads. Certainly stouter than a full size 9mm, also much stouter than the M&P9c... it is controllable though. Trigger pull is LONG and hits a wall right before it breaks... the wall seems to be a very easy place to "stage" the trigger to. It is very similar to a double action revolver shot... so if you can handle a double action revolver, this trigger pull isn't too bad.
Sights are a bit small. I'll probably replace them when aftermarkets are available. Nightsights would be a great factory option. (as would a second or third spare mag in the box.....)
Controls are intuitive to me... they are well laid out and required no thought or extra effort to work.
I really dislike the loaded chamber indicator. I'm going to try and get a spare and grind one down to flush when loaded, subsurface when chamber empty... seems to make more sense to me. And I treat every gun as loaded... I don't require an idiot bar to tell me the weapon is hot. Just ordered one from shopruger.com... so as soon as I have it in hand, I'll grind it down and replace the stock one. Did I mention I dislike the loaded chamber indicator?
My overall take... after owning, carrying and shooting the LCP, P3AT and BG380 (preferring the BG380 the most, P3AT 2nd, LCP last) this gun isn't much larger, nor is it much heavier when holstered (it is several ounces heavier than it's .380 cousins), it does offer enough improvement in BANG/SPLAT over the .380 that it's increased size and weight are easy to deal with.
When I picked this gun up, I compared it with the Keltec PF9, Kahrs CM9 and the Diamond Back DB9.
It is much slimmer than the CM9. The CM9 was way too close in size to my M&P9c for me to honestly consider it.
The LC9 is substantially larger than the DB9. The DB9 is amazingly small and seemed to have been good quality. If it's grip angle were closer to a 1911 than a right angle, I honestly probably would have a DB9 right now. It's grip angle sucks. Hard. My natural point of aim with the DB9 seemed to be about 14 feet in front of me on the floor... my wrists were very uncomfortably bent to get the gun "on target". I don't think I could ever feel truly comfortable with the DB9... shame. It is really small and light. Shockingly small for a 9mm gun in fact.
Compared to the PF9? Very similar, almost like Ruger copied the Keltec (again...
) and added a few touches to keep lawsuits at bay. The Ruger added an External Safety, Mag Drop safety and that stupid loaded chamber indicator... they also added a few ounces over the PF9. The PF9 seemed to have a slightly nicer trigger and was a touch slimmer in the grips. Very similar guns. I really like the thumb safety on the LC9... I'm used to handling 1911's so sweeping the safety down on presentation is natural and the LC9 safety, although small, is well placed. I don't see that the LC9 would be unsafe with the safety left off... the trigger pull is *LONG*, I would feel comfortable carrying it safety off in good leather. I just prefer safetys when they feel similar to the 1911's. The PF9 is a good little gun... it would have been my pick if it had a safety as nice as the Rugers.
Honestly... I picked the LC9 over the CM9 due to size/weight of the CM9. Over the DB9 due to the DB9's horrible grip angle. And over the PF9 due to the thumb safety on the LC9.
9/23/2011 9:06:39 PM
Nice review. Thanks...............
