The Ruger LC9

I like it so far in pics. Can't wait for the reviews.

Very nice. The extra 2 oz. in weight over the Kahr could be a plus. Given how nice the trigger is on the SR9c, maybe they've been able to do something good with this one, too.

Since I've got the SR9c, this would be a redundant firearm in my lineup, so I think I'm still going to get the 638 2.5in. to fill in the easier-carry gap - but if I didn't have the Ruger already, I'd be looking real hard at this one. Looking forward to seeing the reviews. Ruger has staked out a niche for producing high-quality firearms at a solid pricepoint.

Since it has an external safety maybe it has a nice trigger, like the SR9c.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

It will be interesting to compare this to the Sig 290. The sig is a bit larger and I'm sure will be more expensive but will also probably have a better trigger which on small pistols is a big selling point for me.

---

:blink: .................... P290 5.5" long - LC9 6"
.............................. - 3.9" high - 4.5"
.................................. .9" wide - .9"
................................. - 20.5 oz. - 17.1oz.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by azchevy

I don't think anyone wants to imitate Taurus unless they want to go out of business.

---

I think Ruger is becoming Taurus.

How long before the LC40 is announced?

I would've preferred a striker fired pistol.

I don't like the manual safety.

Depending on the reviews, I might have a double pocket carry going on. PF9 in one pocket. LC9 in the other.

I was just about ready to get a LCP this week....now I'm not sure if I should wait another month or so untill I can check out the LC9?

I like it, I will be taking a look.

Nothing new. Yawn.

Makes me glad I got rid of my LCP well, tomorrow.

This will probably be the replacement for my missing Walther PPS (Price is just too much for me at the moment). It has real sights so that's a HUGE plus over the LCP, the trigger is supposed to be "Nice" so thats another huge plus over the LCP, 9mm....say no more.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by zacii

I would've preferred a striker fired pistol.

I don't like the manual safety.

---

In that case, the Walther PPS is the gun for you.


http://i154.photobucket.com/albums/s...side_email.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rollo

It will be interesting to compare this to the Sig 290. The sig is a bit larger and I'm sure will be more expensive but will also probably have a better trigger which on small pistols is a big selling point for me. .

---

Actually, just the opposite is true. The Sig P290 is considerably more compact that the new Ruger LC9 The only advantage the Ruger has is that it is lighter in weight, that is all. The SIG is also made from stainless steel, while the the Ruger uses a steel alloy. Both guns have the exact same width. Here is a comparision chart that I posted in the other Ruger thread illustrating the other dimension differences.

Remember: All three of this guns below have the exact same width:


. . . . . . . . . Ruger PC9 . . Walther PPS . SIG P290

Barrel Length: . . 3.12 . . . . . 3.2 . . . . . 2.9 _ inches
Length Overall: . .6.0 . . . . . .6.3 . . . . . 5.5
Height: . . . . . . . 4.5 . . . . . .4.4 . . . . . 3.9
Weight: . . . . . . .17.1 . . . . 19.4 . . . . 20.5 _ oz


I fully agree that I expect that the SIG P290 will most likely have a better trigger pull than this new Ruger.

.

I like it but I don't think I will get one. This is a very good design and I think that a lot of people are going to buy into it. I would rather buy a Walther PPS or Glock 26 and I prefer to pocket carry a J frame.