Rugar lc9

[Shawnmoore81 623]

http://www.ruger.com/products/lc9/models.html

 

I'm really liking this new rugar

[coldsolderjoint 84]

Cool. Seems like this has been a long time coming.

[Stiff Shots Photography 0]

I fully expect this to cannibalize sales of both the LCP and SR9c. If you already own a 9mm, it'd make sense to pick up something you don't have to buy another size/price point of ammo for. If you already own an SR9 (which is not a huge sidearm to begin with), the über-concealability of the LC9 beats the 9c all hollow. Plus it appears to have better sights and a smoother, pocket-friendlier finish than the LCP. Win-win-win-and-win.

[Pate 1]

Video of the LC9 in action.

 

http://www.downrange.tv/blog/first-look-at-the-ruger-lc9-video/7990/

[nott 0]

I wonder what its trigger pull is going to be like.

 

-

[PK90 3,570]

I wonder what its trigger pull is going to be like.

 

-

 

Video says "LONG and STRONG" double action only trigger pull.

[coldsolderjoint 84]

actually, the video just pointed out to me the manual safety.. now i dont like it so much

[kwadz 11]

actually, the video just pointed out to me the manual safety.. now i dont like it so much

 

OUCH. I didn't realize that. That's really a bummer as I love my KelTec 3AT (same as the LCP) for the fact that there is no manual safety and it has a long, heavy trigger pull. The manual safety would be a deal breaker for me. What's the MSRP on it, anyway?

[jermz1987 243]

[RecessedFilter 222]

What is the big deal about it having a manual safety? Couldn't you just keep it off all the time and ignore it?

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

You could do that. But theres the chance that it will flip on by accident and get you killed, or the mechanism can fail and lock the gun up and get you killed. While the latter is a very remote chance, its possible.

[RecessedFilter 222]

I see. I guess since I don't carry I don't take points like that into consideration.

[mikeyboyeee 66]

You could do that. But theres the chance that it will flip on by accident and get you killed, or the mechanism can fail and lock the gun up and get you killed. While the latter is a very remote chance, its possible.

 

Gee what did people do for the 100 yrs before Glocks with no safties came out.

 

Not buying a gun because it has safety is insane!

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

100 years before glocks there werent safetys either....revolvers...

So, why do you have to have a safety? what do you think they used 100 years before the glock? Right back atchya'!

 

 

Saying that not buying a gun because it has a safety is insane because they didnt have that option years ago is like saying that its insane to buy any gun with a non damascus barrel, because hey, what did they use ~110+ years ago!??!?!

[NJdiverTony 27]

You could do that. But theres the chance that it will flip on by accident and get you killed, or the mechanism can fail and lock the gun up and get you killed. While the latter is a very remote chance, its possible.

 

I don't get it... Is that because you'd carry it cocked and ready to fire? Even if the saftey was accidentally flipped to the off position, wouldn't it still require a hammer to be pulled back and released to hit the primer, or the trigger to be pulled in order to fire?

 

Just trying to understand, as a pistol noob... I see comments all the time on this forum and others from people that balk at manual safeties on a handgun, and don't understand why. I always thought that a manual safety gives you an added level of safety. If that assumption is wrong, please help me understand.

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

With a heavy trigger pull a pistol is safe to carry without any manual external safety, hence I'de carry it safety off because its one less thing to do when drawing. One less thing that can possibly go wrong. However theres always a chance it would slip on screwing you up by suprise. Since I wouldnt use it anyways, I'de rather not have the slight chance of it going on when I dont want it to. If theres no safety, it cant go on

 

Its %100 personal preferance. What im saying isnt right nor wrong. Its what I believe. If you agree or not is up to you, but I prefer no safety on a carry gun. My opinion however is different on a range gun, or a nightstand gun.

 

Thread officially hi-jacked!

[ptbr321 59]

How would you compare this gun to the sig p290?

[djg0770 481]

How would you compare this gun to the sig p290?

 

 

Well, for starters, I would hold both of them in my hand and I would begin the comparison in that fashion.

 

Barring that, I would compare them by looking at the specifications listed online.

 

After that, I might do a little internet surfing and see if someone has made such a comparison.

 

THAT'S how I would compare them.

[mikeyboyeee 66]

100 years before glocks there werent safetys either....revolvers...

So, why do you have to have a safety? what do you think they used 100 years before the glock? Right back atchya'!

 

 

Saying that not buying a gun because it has a safety is insane because they didnt have that option years ago is like saying that its insane to buy any gun with a non damascus barrel, because hey, what did they use ~110+ years ago!??!?!

 

 

So you only owned revolvers before you could buy a a semi auto pistol without a safety?

[Pew Pew Plates 358]

So you only owned revolvers before you could buy a a semi auto pistol without a safety?

 

100 years before the glock was mid-late 1880's and semi-autos were not common. If your talking about the years in between, then meh. Its like saying I shouldnt drive a direct injection car because they werent direct injection when they first came out. I still dont get your logic.

[NJdiverTony 27]

Thread officially hi-jacked!

 

Sorry about that! Just had to ask, as I've seen quite a few people say they don't like manual safeties but didn't know why.

[vladtepes 1,060]

I could not agree more with Glenn... the best safety you will ever utilize is YOU.. I would also rather not have an external safety on a gun that I was relying on to save my life.. this is why Glock is so appealing to me.. it is a nice proven design that will not fire unless you pull the trigger.. you can literally throw it at a wall and the gun will not discharge.. I had the unfortunate experience of dropping mine on asphalt once with a round in the chamber.. no discharge (no real scratches for that matter either)... so I would rather carry a gun like that.. less things to think about.. take it out.. pull the trigger..

 

+6 or something like that to Glenn in this thread.. lol

[henrym 19]

it seems that most of the people wanting a manual safety are 1911 shooters who are used to cocked and locked. Thats fine for a single action gun because it makes much less force to accidentally trip a single action trigger compared tot he long heavy pull of a double action. I prefer no safety but thats just personal preference.

[vladtepes 1,060]

it seems that most of the people wanting a manual safety are 1911 shooters who are used to cocked and locked. Thats fine for a single action gun because it makes much less force to accidentally trip a single action trigger compared tot he long heavy pull of a double action. I prefer no safety but thats just personal preference.

 

+1

Action failed: You have reached your quota of positive votes for the day

 

I think that is the situation completely.. While I am not too into manual safeties.. I am not sure I would be that confident walking around with the hammer cocked back on a 1911.. so I think your statement is dead on..

[PK90 3,570]

 

 

[djg0770 481]

I am not sure I would be that confident walking around with the hammer cocked back on a 1911.

 

100 years of documented use (happy birthday 1911), in some of the crappiest conditions in the world, cocked and locked - I'll take those odds on a 1911.

[Ray Ray 3,566]

GLenn and Vlad have spoken for me. If it didn't have a safety, then i might take a look. But since it does, and not even ambi since I'm a southpaw, then the gun is dead to me. The Sig P290 is a better gun, NO SAFETY!

[vladtepes 1,060]

 

quite possibly the best image I have ever quoted on this site!

[vladtepes 1,060]

100 years of documented use (happy birthday 1911), in some of the crappiest conditions in the world, cocked and locked - I'll take those odds on a 1911.

don't confuse my lack of interest with lack of respect.. I understand that a 1911 that is set up properly can be a very efficient weapon.. and the lines of the weapon can be amazing.. some of them just look menacing.. I will at some point likely own one.. but I was saying I would not carry a gun of that type.. WITHOUT an external safety.. while the Glocks trigger may be horrific compared to a finely tuned 1911.. it serves a purpose.. and that is to only engage when deliberately pulled.. that coupled with the trigger safety.. makes it the gun for me.. maybe not the best at everything.. but dead reliable... and accurate enough with a decent shooter and some practice to do the job.. I love my Glock.. but I do not drink the Glock Kool Aide.. I am not delusional.. lol

 

GLenn and Vlad have spoken for me. If it didn't have a safety, then i might take a look. But since it does, and not even ambi since I'm a southpaw, then the gun is dead to me. The Sig P290 is a better gun, NO SAFETY!

 

that's what we are here for.. = )

[vjf915 456]

I am no expert on firearms, let alone CCW......but I think that I would feel better with a gun that had SOME kind of safety mechanism. Whether it is a manual safety, or something similar to the Glock safety, or some kind of backstrap safety like on the 1911 or XD.......I just don't think I want to rely on a "heavy trigger pull" as my insurance that my gun won't go off while I'm carrying.