Jump to content
ogfarmer

Ruger LC9 anyone got one?

Recommended Posts

I have one, it has the Galloway trigger bar in it tho- stock, the LC9 has a VERY LONG trigger pull. Too long imo.  By the time the trigger breaks, you're about 1mm away from the frame of the gun.  It's ridiculous. Ruger and their stupid attorney-designed gun features....

 

Anyway, I am a member at EFGA, but haven't gone yet- you're welcome to shoot mine, if we could work out a day to meet. But remember, I have an upgraded trigger bar, my gun is easier to shoot than a stock LC9.  The trigger bar is only $35, it's a drop-in replacement, no gunsmithing skills required.

 

BTW, great little gun.  With the stock trigger, I couldn't hit the broad side of a barn. And I'm a good shot. With the upgraded trigger, I can hit center mass from 20 feet most of the time, obviously with accuracy increasing as distance decreases.  My point being, the trigger bar made a WORLD of difference for me. Like 2 different guns.

 

That being said, if I had it to do over, I'd buy the Sig P238 (absolutely love that gun; feels like it was made for me and I shoot it perfectly), or Sig P938.  With the P238, I hit the entire magazine within 8" at about 15 feet.  Surprised me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rented one at Target World in Chalfont,PA when they first came out.

Long trigger pull completely ruined any expectation of accuracy i had. Hated it ever after and since i don't modify any of my guns didnt want to look into options.

 

I did buy the Sig P238 in 389ACP instead and its so accurate that i m always surprised what a great gun it is. You can try mine anytine you want.

My purpose was to get a pocket carry.

 

Also tried the Sig938 in 9mm but i didn't do better groups and ddi poorly with it compared to the p238

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm trying to stick to 9mm since that's the ammo I use in all my pistols, I don't want to start buying a another caliber. Thanks tho

 

That was my concern as well. After shooting the P238, I might just change my mind however. lol

 

With an improved trigger, the LC9 is a very good little gun. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have had one for about a year. Short is I love it and plan to use it as a ccw. The long is I had my original slide replaced buy ruger because of a recall. There was some issue with a firing pin thing on early model. The trigger is long and double action but after a few hundred rounds has smoothed out. If you want a race gun this aint it. It has a purpose and for that its perfect. I like the trigger because I wont ever shoot this gun more then 5-10ish yards. Its a ccw gun buy design and shooting at a bad guy any further will get you into trouble.

 

Sent from my SPH-L900 using Tapatalk

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My main purpose of this is CCW since I am so fat wearing a belt is nearly impossible. My EMP 9mm is too heavy and my other smaller frame polys are to uncomfortable to carry given my girth. I just saw that Heritage guild has them I'm their rental inventory .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my next is the new updated lcp 380. Not to get into a round debate but at 5 feet I would not want to be shot with a full magazine of 380. That is a true ccw pocket gun.

+1.

 

After being a 9mm guy for years, if I didn't mind adding a caliber to what I already have trouble finding at a decent price, .380 would be the one for CCW.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The LC9 grip is a little thin for me, so I put a Pachmayr grip sleeve on it and it fits my hand much better now.  

 

My trigger reduces trigger pull distance by about 35%; Gallloway will also be releasing a 50% reduction trigger bar, which I will also buy and try...  altho the 35% makes a WORLD of difference already over the crappy stock trigger.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been noticing that they changed the trigger on the lc380 and lcp in newer models its all over the web but ruger has not come out and said it. I would go to a store and try a new one out.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btzaVNLSm_E

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XycvZKmcTs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have been noticing that they changed the trigger on the lc380 and lcp in newer models its all over the web but ruger has not come out and said it. I would go to a store and try a new one out.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btzaVNLSm_E

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6XycvZKmcTs

 

They did. And they haven't admitted it.  The original pull on the LCP was WORSE than the LC9.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



  • alderferbanner.PNG

  • Supporting Vendors

  • Latest Topics

  • Posts

    • @Zeke: Seriously, if someone can afford to buy a gun and ammunition, then they can also in all likelihood also afford the annual cost of liability insurance.... If someone cannot afford the cost of liability insurance for a firearm then they would have the choice to use other tools to defend themselves, such as knives, bows/arrows, or other creative methods….    Don't tell me that you are going all Bernie Sanders here and possibly advocating that we taxpayers should pay to provide every American citizen over the age of 18, a FREE firearm......?     AVB-AMG
    • @bennj: I don’t know what planet you are on or from, but on Earth, in our country, owning/driving an automobile, let alone having a job, to work for a living, for the vast majority of us is not a privilege, but a real necessity….  - Other than those who were born into a very wealthy family need a job to earn an income to provide the necessities for themselves and their family. - Other than those who live close enough to their workplace where they can either walk, ride a bicycle or take public transportation, they need a car for their essential transportation to their workplace, as well as for running errands, etc..  BTW, while our Declaration of Independence says that among these rights are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness", nowhere in the U.S. Constitution does it mention "unalienable" rights. FYI - More people own cars than guns, which I postulate is due to their choice based on necessity.  As you will see, less than one half of all American adults over the age of 18 who own an automobile, own a firearm.  I believe that in their minds, they have decided that they need cars more than they need guns, which is their choice. This is how I arrived at those approximate numbers: In the 1st Qtr. of 2019, there were approximately 276 million vehicle operating on public roads in the U.S. (see the following link) https://www.statista.com/statistics/859950/vehicles-in-operation-by-quarter-united-states/ As of 2018, there are approximately 327 million people in the United States, of which approximately 78% are over the age of 18, or approx. 255 million people. According to a 2014 Pew Research study, 88% of Americans own a car, or approximately 224 million people. https://www.citylab.com/transportation/2015/04/global-car-motorcycle-and-bike-ownership-in-1-infographic/390777/ According to a Gallup survey, at the end of the 3rd Qtr. of 2019, approximately 40% of Americans, own a gun, stored in their home or on their property.  https://news.gallup.com/poll/264932/percentage-americans-own-guns.aspx So, doing the math: 40% of 255 million American adults over the age of 18, is just over 102 million American adults who own guns, which is less than half the number of people who own cars.  Even taking into account individuals who may own 2 or more cars, the comparison is significant in that your so-called privilege vs. right argument does not matter to a vast majority of Americans who have decided that they need an automobile more than they need a gun.
    • @Sniper & @silverado427: Criminals do not respect laws and this proposal is not geared towards them.  It is aimed at all of us legal gun owners to address the aftermath of unfortunate accidents involving our firearms. If you use your firearm for self-defense, presumably inside your home in NJ, it could result in a very complicated and expensive legal ramifications, that liability insurance coverage may address, depending on how the law is written. I am a law-abiding citizen and I buy and maintain insurance for my home, automobiles and personal property, in addition to general liability and professional E&O liability, not to mention my health/medical insurance.  So yes, I do not see a problem with requiring gun owners to have a minimum level of liability insurance. AVB-AMG
    • @Mrs. Peel & @Cemeterys Gun Blob: Apparently, you both are missing the bigger picture of what liability insurance is for.  I never said, nor do I believe that requiring gun owners to have liability insurance would either prevent or reduce gun violence, let alone gun-related crimes.  What it would do is provide the “price to pay” to gun violence victims and/or their family as a form of restitution or a form of compensation for their injury or loss.  Of course, if the injury or death occurs as a result of the person committing a crime then the courts would relieve the insurance company from paying anything.  This proposed insurance basically accepts that our society is not really going to succeed in eliminating gun violence, but is a vehicle to attempt to address the results in a compassionate and meaningful manner. Mrs. Peel: You make a good point in my semantics, that my choice of words was flawed.  I should have omitted “steadily increasing”, as well as the word “mounting”.  By removing those, my point is clearer and valid. AVB-AMG
    • @Mrs. Peel & @Cemeterys Gun Blob: Apparently, you both are missing the bigger picture of what liability insurance is for.  I never said, nor do I believe that requiring gun owners to have liability insurance would either prevent or reduce gun violence, let alone gun-related crimes.  What it would do is provide the “price to pay” to gun violence victims and/or their family as a form of restitution or a form of compensation for their injury or loss.  Of course, if the injury or death occurs as a result of the person committing a crime then the courts would relieve the insurance company from paying anything.  This proposed insurance basically accepts that our society is not really going to succeed in eliminating gun violence, but is a vehicle to attempt to address the results in a compassionate and meaningful manner. Mrs. Peel: You make a good point in my semantics, that my choice of words was flawed.  I should have omitted “steadily increasing”, as well as the word “mounting”.  By removing those, my point is clearer and valid. AVB-AMG
×
×
  • Create New...