Ruger SR9c, LC9?

[Ben]

Do any of you have either of these pistols? If so, what are your impressions? Mostly interested from the CCW perspective versus range shooting.

[zahc]

I don't like Ruger. I don't like the annoying layer-badges they stick on their guns; I don't the horrible triggers that they put on everything; I don't think their rifles have very nice actions or barrels; I don't like their politics. I don't know about the SR/LR guns, but I'm sure whatever they are I can get a substitute from another manufacturer. When I looked at the SR9, it was typical...terrible trigger, cheap construction, and I don't see the point of that thumb safety. I'm sure the Ruger fans will snatch them up, though.

[gunsmith]

I was really interested in the lc9 but then found it has way to may safeties, I like drawing and shooting & not having to remember to click off a safety. looks nice though, I bet with practice it would be awesome ccw. I handled one at the gunshop a few weeks ago, really liked the way it felt.

[lee n. field]

I was really interested in the lc9 but then found it has way to may safeties

Thumb safety, ignorable.  ILS, ditto.  Magazine disconnect, so I've read, is easily removed.  Whether it's wise to do so is another question.

I handled one at the gunshop a few weeks ago, really liked the way it felt.

That too.

[dogmush]

I have a love/hate relationship with Rugers.  My SBH and GP-100 are pretty sweet revolvers actually.  My mini-14 and M77 are solidly middle of the pack, that do fine in their assigned roles.  I have a P-95 that I never shoot, and have fired a friends P-345 and a SR9. Ruger's auto's always feel clunky and ill designed in my hands.  The triggers are heavy, stack and break horribly. The P-95 is fatter then it should be, and has annoying protrusions everywhere.  The SR9 didn't point for me, again nasty trigger, and just felt .... cheap for lack of a better adjective.  However, EVERY Ruger I've shot has worked.  They feed and fire pretty much every time.

If it fits your hand, and the trigger doesn't make you wince, then it's a solid, reliable firearm.  For my money I'd stay with their revolvers.  In the LC9 class, I'm always impressed by my wife's PPS when she lets me shoot it.  That's a nice pistol. 

[Ben]

Ruger's auto's always feel clunky and ill designed in my hands.  The triggers are heavy, stack and break horribly. The P-95 is fatter then it should be, and has annoying protrusions everywhere. 

That was actually my feeling as well with a P95 I once shot. I've just heard so many rave reviews of the little Rugers though, that I had to re-examine that. Hence my asking here to try and get the low down from people I know. :)

I like my two single action Ruger revolvers, and my LCR has a pretty darn nice DAO trigger for the type of firearm it is.

Thanks for the tip on the PPS - I didn't even know that was being made.

[MechAg94]

Ruger autos have always been very reliable in my experience and some are very accurate.  For what is generally at the bottom of the price scales, that isn't a bad thing.  I agree that many of them are chunky, uncomfortable, and not always real smooth to shoot.  Given that they are cheaper, they at least are reliable and generally don't have any serious flaws that make them unusable. 

They are better than the Taurus autos I have experience with.  I don't know if that is saying much though. 

[MechAg94]

My main direct experience is with a P94 in 40 cal and a few different Ruger Mark II in .22LR.  Ruger Mk II has been reliable as hell and plenty accurate.  I have been shooting my target model at 50 yards a bit.  Disassembly is a pain, but it doesn't need to be super clean to shoot well and you can clean the barrel and oil it without pulling the slide off.  The P94 I bought used and worked well once I cleaned all the dirt and crap out of it.  However, it was big and clunky and tended to recoil to the side a bit when shooting which was annoying.  I traded it in as credit towards a used USP 45.  

[AJ Dual]

At our club's hunter sight-in-clinic some guys brought a Ruger LC9 out just yesterday. Whichever of the three bought it, had just picked it up that day.

They couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with it at 10 yards. Although that could have just as easily been due to inexperience with small autos, with short sight radiuses, and heavy triggers.

Functioned just fine though.

[Ben]

They couldn't hit the broadside of a barn with it at 10 yards.

Honestly, I have that same problem with my LCR. :)

If I'm ever accosted while carrying a pocket pistol, my planned modas operandi is to run like hell unless the altercation is in the <10' range. The one compact pistol that I'm good with at greater than arms length is my Micro-Compact, but I haven't yet become 100% confident in it reliability-wise for CCW.

[MillCreek]

Honestly, I have that same problem with my LCR. :)

If I'm ever accosted while carrying a pocket pistol, my planned modas operandi is to run like hell unless the altercation is in the <10' range.

I actually think that is sage advice even if you are carrying a full-size handgun.  It would certainly remove the potential for criminal or civil liability.  Obvious exceptions would apply, such as having a companion there or the situation did not lend itself to escape. 

[Ben]

Very true Millcreek.

[MechAg94]

I always figured that was the strategy with any small caliber pistol.  Shoot then run like hell.  You can be pretty sure it won't drop them where they stand so putting some distance between you and the attacker is a must. 

I have the Keltec PF9.  I can hit the target at 15 yards just fine.  I haven't shot it enough yet, but I think the biggest complaint might be that you have to release the DAO trigger back quite a bit before it resets fully.  Of course, some of that could have been that I didn't clean or oil it before taking it right out to shoot.  I'll have to shoot it some more.

[MrsSmith]

Mech, I fired quite a few rounds through a Kel-Tec P3AT (.380) and HATED it. Although I hit the target at about 7 yards, shot placement wasn't what it should have been, which of course would likely improve with practice. But practicing with it would present a problem. It ejects straight up and back and EVERY round hit me square in the forehead with a two-handed stance. Shooting strong or weak hand with a more sideways stance seemed to put enough distance between the ejector and my head that it didn't hit me as often, but after being nailed several times, the urge to turn my head and flinch was difficult to overcome. The male friend I shot with was hit in the chest with casings rather than the face, but of course he's larger than me.

Also, the trigger sucks. I understand the need to have a heavier trigger on a small carry gun, but when releasing the trigger my index finger was getting pinched between the bottom of the trigger and the guard. After a few mags I had a nice little bruise going. Add that to the casing issue and it isn't an effective carry gun for me at all - if I know I'm going to get "hurt" using it, there's naturally going to be some hesitation and that's not good.

Got a Smith Bodyguard yesterday and put a couple mags through it. Casing goes where it should (up and away from me), action is smoother, trigger is still pinching my finger but not as bad. It's 6.3 lbs at the moment and I'm going to talk to a gunsmith friend and see if he can take it back to about 5, if possible. The laser attached made for really accurate shot placement too - loved that!

As to Ruger's, I absolutely loved the Mk III target pistol. Saw an article about a new compact they have out called the Nano and I was thinking it might make a good carry pistol - just a hair bigger than the Kel-Tec and Bodyguard, but a 9mm so a little more firepower. I'll see how the Smith works for now. At this point I'm just looking at it as something to buy me time to get to a bigger gun.

[lee n. field]

I have a love/hate relationship with Rugers.  ...

Yeah, pretty much.

My Mini-14 was "ehh", traded toward an AK and didn't look back.  Mark II Target is a keeper, 2 thumbs up.  I have a plain Jane 10/22 that I keep around only because it's a good idea to have a decent .22 rifle around.  P90 is another "ehh" -- bulky, low capacity for its size, so-so ergonomics, and a trigger that feels mushy.  But it goes bang every single time, and that is not a virtue to scorn.

I've shot an SR9, full size.  Back a couple years ago when I was shopping for a 9mm, I could have saved a fair chunk buying that instead of the Glock I did get, but I did not care for the trigger.  Interwebz gunpodcast/gunblog/gunforum hearsay says the compact version is much better.  YMMV.

Would not mind having an SP101.

Mech, I fired quite a few rounds through a Kel-Tec P3AT (.380) and HATED it. ...blah,blah, tale of woe...

Got a Smith Bodyguard yesterday and put a couple mags through it.

I tried a Bodyguard .380.  Did not like the trigger.  Pull, pull, "is this thing ever going to fire?", pull, BANG!

Try a PF9, if you can.  It's pretty well behaved, with a trigger that reminds me of my DA snub.   No formal target shooting, but I can hit surplus Barbies and roll cat food cans to a fair distance with it.

[PGroenewold]

I can tell you about the LC9... I picked one up several months ago. I live in WI so haven't had the opportunity to CC it yet, but have had it out at the range a number of times. My impressions, in no particular order:

First, it strikes me as a small, compact, easy-to-conceal pistol. It's a bit large for practical pocket carry, but not by much. I suppose if you were a big man or had baggy cargo pants, you could get away with it. But a normal guy with jeans or khakis should find a different carry option, IMO. Next, its polymer grip feels a little thin in your hand, especially at the backstrap. You would think that would make it painful to shoot, but the recoil is actually very manageable. Takedown is similar to the Kel-Tecs; you just punch out a crosspin and the slide separates from the grip frame as you would expect.

The three-dot sights are pretty good for a compact, sub-$400 piece, and the rear sight is adjustable for windage (not sure about elevation, though). The controls include a tiny slide release lever and a small thumb safety on the left side of the slide. Both are very tight, and even after several hundred rounds I still cannot manually close the slide using the lever (I just "slingshot" the slide back to load the pistol). The slide does lock back after the last round is fired, and that's always worked reliably for me. The magazine was also very tight, and it took a couple of range sessions before I could load it to its full capacity.

So how does it shoot? Well, the trigger is horrible... again very similar to the P3AT. I don't have a trigger gauge, but I doubt it's less than 10 pounds and it has a looooong pull. There's also an unusually high amount of stacking just before the trigger breaks. Fortunately, the stacking is predictable and with some practice you can get used to it. Having said that, I'm not sure a match trigger is appropriate for this type of pistol - and I certainly don't expect a "glass rod" at this price point. Once you get used to the trigger, the accuracy is surprisingly good. I am able to keep all 7 rounds within a 6" Shoot-N-See offhand at 15 yards. It's not as accurate as a compact fixed-barrel pistol like the Makarov, but again it's quite good for what it is. As I mentioned before, the recoil is very manageable and this is aided by the pinkie extension on the magazine which allows a true three-fingered grip. Reliability has been excellent; I have never had a jam, FTF, or FTE with either hardball or hollow points.

All in all, I think it's a good value for the money and you could do far worse for a compact, affordable CC piece.

[seeker_two]

Either is a good choice....but, considering the slide width needed for 9mm, I'd just go ahead and go with the SR9c....I decided the same thing when I went to my XDsc....for the same slide width as a Kel-Tec or Ruger 9mm, I could have 12 rounds instead of 6-7......