Ruger LC9 vs LC9s

[rugerman07]

I'm considering selling my LC9 (which is my CCW) and replacing it with an LC9s. Is the LC9s really a better choice of the two?

Yeah, I know, the LC9s does have a better trigger. But just how important is that in an up close self defense situation, 15 yards or under. The trigger on the LC9 isn't that bad at close ranges, I can easily hit an upper torso silhouette target out to 15 yards with mine.

Also, is one safer than the other (striker fire vs hammer fire) for carrying with a loaded round in the chamber?

 

[jmr40]

I had the LC9, didn't like the trigger and gave it to my daughter. She isn't that much of a gun person and felt the heavy trigger and safety might not be a bad idea for her. I seriously thought about replacing it with the LC9s, but the G43 came out about the same time. Since I already have several Glocks it made sense to stay with that platform. Otherwise I'd have gotten the LC9s. It would be worth it to me. The older LC9 pistols don't bring much in trade or resale value. It might be better just to keep it and have 2 similar guns.

 

[ulflyer]

You'll get all sorts of opinions; mine is, stick with the LC9 and its longer trigger pull that makes it a safer carry gun. I never had an LC9, but did own a LC9S and found that, for me, the trigger was way too easy to let off prematurely. There was a reason for this and it was because I own and carry several Kahr's....all of which have a long trigger pull. Thats what I'm used to. The LC9 that I later looked at in a gun store felt a lot like the Kahr. Thus, if I had bought the LC9 first, I'd prob still own it. I let the LC9S go as too dangerous for my purposes. If you like short trigger pulls, and a great many do, the LC9S is a great pistol. It just didn't suit me.

 

[mongoose33]

I agree with ulflyer's view on this.

I have the LC9, it's my primary carry gun. I always liked the DA first pull because I wouldn't have a light trigger to deal with.

My brother bought the LC9s, and it's a nice gun, and the trigger is very nice. However, I'm not looking to trade in or up to it with my LC9.

There's another interesting effect the LC9 has had on me: I improved my trigger control greatly with it. It forces me to have a smooth and deliberate trigger pull which transfers over to every other pistol I own.

In fact, I believe it's a great training gun (caveat: If you have large hands maybe not so much, but I'm not that). One of my favorite teaching drills is to balance a 9mm casing on the front site of an an empty (check to see!) pistol; when one can pull the trigger without displacing that 9mm casing, one has a very good trigger pull.

It's harder with the LC9, for obvious reasons, but once you master that, wow.

It's a little hard to get that casing balanced up on that front site and then taking a proper grip, but that can be mitigated w/ a little baling wire (or similar) to create something to pick up the casing with both hands on the gun.

In short: the LC9 was the best thing to ever happen to me for learning trigger control, and since it's not a touchy trigger, I like it greatly as a carry gun.

 

[beag_nut]

I first rented an LC9 and the trigger was worse than awful for me; my fingers are large and I couldn't even get the full travel without "straining" the trigger finger (the trigger guard gets smaller the further back one goes). That blew the idea of getting that pistol.
So, now Ruger came out with the LC9s, which is MUCH better. Don't even have to reach the back of the guard for let-off.
I don't understand the reasoning for harder-to-use being better for CCW. One trains for proper use, over and over, until it becomes instinctive.

 

[Saleen322]

I tried both the LC9 and LC9s. I bought the LC9. It shoots groups under 5" standing from 10 yards and with the trigger pull and the safety, I believe the chances of an unintended discharge are reduced. It is well designed for its intended purpose. YMMV

 

[Tallball]

I like my LC9 just fine. I can shoot it with reasonable accuracy. I am not sure I would want one in my pocket with a very light trigger.

 

[barnbwt]

Is either more powerful in terms of primer strike?

 

[aarondhgraham]

I like my LC9 just fine,,,

I like my LC9 just fine.

I fixed the trigger very easily,,,
I bought 500 rounds of bulk ammo and practiced.

I have fired the newer LC9s,,,
To me the trigger is simply way too light.

If it were a target pistol I say go light,,,
My preference in a SD pistol is to have a bit of weight.

JMHO - YMMV

Aarond

.

 

[burk]

I like the LC9, I think the revolver like trigger pull and safety make it the perfect casual carry gun. When I'm worried about printing with my Glock 19 in summer or just running down to the local convienience store. I grab the LC9. It doesn't require a specialized high quality IWB like a bigger heavier gun does. And with that trigger you don't need special trigger protection in your holster, many times I've just shoved it in my waistband. I've thought about the G43, but for what it is the original LC9 is a great option. And I shoot it pretty damn well too.

 

[cnj]

LC9s > LC9 All. Day. Long.
I HAD an LC9. It is long gone, and I don't miss it one bit!
I HAVE an LC9s. The trigger is head and shoulders above the old LC9. I am much more comfortable shooting the "S"!

 

[FireInCairo]

I think there are benefits on either side. The original has a longer trigger pull, so it would make safer in that respect. Considering even with the long trigger it's still a good shooter is nice. The only beef with the new trigger regarding safety is reholstering. Guns don't go off by themselves, and the majority of negligent discharges happen when reholstering a gun without care.

If you're going to carry a personal protection pistol, you always want one in the chamber for the quickest response to a threat.

If you get the LC9s, just take special care when holstering and reholstering.

 

[weblance]

I have 2 LC9(hammer) pistols, and I just bought the LC9s Pro. I never felt the original trigger was that bad, as I was brought up shooting DA revolvers, and I own, and shoot, quite a few DA revolvers.

Shooting my LC9s Pro is much different than the hammer LC9 gun. The trigger is reasonably light, the break is much shorter than the original, the trigger stops immediately after the break, and the reset is much shorter. I think Ruger really got it right this time with the LC9s and LC9s Pro. I suppose I can see how a ND can happen reholstering the striker gun without a safety, but you would really have to do something stupid to have a ND with your finger on the trigger. It has quite a bit of take-up, then the cocking portion of the striker is definitely felt, and somewhat long.

This next comment applies to the Pro model only, In my opinion, the omission of the safety, and the magazine disconnect, makes the Pro a superb pistol. 2 other changes from the LC9 to the LC9s, the Loaded Chamber Indicator, and the internal lock are both gone.

I also noticed that the magazine latch is very positive on the new LC9s gun. I have had problems with my original LC9 dropping the mag under recoil, with the pinky extension installed. I went to the flat floorplate, and it didn't seem to happen again. Checking them side by side today, the original latch feels mushy, and weak. The new latch snaps in place, and requires a much deeper press to release the mag.

So, in my opinion, not only is the trigger vastly improved in the striker fired version, there are 5 other improvements with the LC9s Pro, compared to the original LC9.

No Safety
No Magazine Disconnect
No Internal Lock
No Loaded Chamber Indicator
Improved Magazine Latch

Ruger was smart to design the new pistol so the original accessories are compatible. All my magazines work, my Crimson Trace Laser Guard, and all holsters are still useful.

 

[Quentin]

I agree with everything weblance said above, the LC9S Pro, all the way. I wasn't fond of the old LC9 trigger but the pistol is the right size. When the S model was released I bought one then bought the Pro when it was released last year. To me the Pro version is superior to both earlier versions, for the reasons weblance stated. In fact it is superior to the Glock 43 as well, mainly due to the extra round in the magazine.

 

[cocojo]

I own both and I bought the LC9 last. Nothing wrong with either pistol, I carry both. I like the triggers on both handguns and I prefer the LC9 recoil spring system much better than the two piece LC9s. I don't use the safety on the LC9 and I really don't care about the magazine safety. I do like the pop up indicator. Both my guns shoot excellent. I would keep it and not trade the LC9 and forget about the lighter trigger on the LC9s, it's way too light in my view for a hide out gun. Maybe just maybe if you blow hard enough on that trigger you may even get it to fire. Defensive pistols need a wee bit of extra margin of safety with a slightly heavier trigger. If you have to pull that trigger you really need to mean to pull it. Besides in a real situation your trigger could be 20lbs and you won't know your pulled that trigger. It's not a range gun it's a hide out gun for deep carry, do you really want a trigger that light? Keep the LC9. Last thought, if you were to carry either one of these pistols in the appendix carry position, which one would you feel safer carrying and tucking away in that area. I would keep the LC9!

 

[CajunBass]

Well, I'm not a "semi-guy." I've never even seen an LC9 that I recall, but over the holidays I picked up an LC9s. I liked it so much I went back and bought another one. Best out of the box trigger I've ever used. I shoot it way better than I ever did a small (J-frame type) D/A revolver.

But, if I had an LC9 that I liked, I wouldn't bother to get rid of it to pick up something else.

 

[aarondhgraham]

One other advantage of the original LC9,,,

One other advantage of the original LC9,,,
You can buy this spiffy little .22 conversion kit for it.



Hours and hours of cheap practice for much less than 9mm ammo.

BTW,,,
That $11.95 Pachmayer grip sleeve,,,
Completely tamed the recoil of the 9mm cartridge.

Aarond

.

 

[dickydalton]

I've never owned an LC9 but I bought an LC9S. I removed the magazine disconnect and installed a Galloway Precision stainless steel guide rod and springs. It's way accurate and has a sweet trigger. I didn't get the Pro because I wanted the safety.

 

[ROCK6]

I guess it's good Ruger has the two options. My wife first had the LC9 and then tried the LC9s; she much prefers the LC9. I think most of her "likes" are superficial, but she thinks the longer trigger pull is fine and safe. She likes the loaded-chamber indicator, the safety and the magazine disconnect.

I've found her LC9's trigger pull long, but quite smooth and capable of some decent groups even though most of our practice is short-range engagement training. She also like the longer pull as she often carries her LC9 in a Flashbang during the winter and feels much safer with drawing the pistol.

I wish I would have picked up one of those Twisted Industries conversion kits for her LC9...hopefully they'll get some more in-stock.

ROCK6

 

[Plan2Live]

My thoughts;

Manual safety is redundant on a DA James fired pistol with a long stiff trigger pull but Ruger put one there so accept it or move on.

Magazine disconnect safety can save your life just a easily as it can cost you your life. Comes down to which scenario you think is most likely. On other words both are equal.

Loaded chamber indicator. I don't personally know anyone who has had a pistol malfunction due to a loaded chamber indicator.

Internal lock. I don't care for them but I'm also not afraid of them on a name brand gun.

Improved magazine catch. If it was a problem then Ruger should fix it across the entire product line.

I'm always amused at how much emphasis many people place on that perfectly crisp breaking trigger on a self defense gun. Go take a force-on-force class with air soft pistols then come back and tell me you had time to notice how crisp and precise the trigger was or wasn't. But if you are really concerned about the LC9 trigger, contact Gallloway and see what they have to offer.

I think the OP nailed it when he described the LC9 as an easily carried close distance self defense pistol. The original LC9 fills this niche quite nicely.

 

[giggitygiggity]

Get the LC9s. The trigger is far superior to the LC9.

 

[MDI_Weapon]

I had an LC9 and ended up trading it for the LC9s. Hand size had a lot to do with that. I know that sounds odd since the frames are identical but the length of the trigger stroke on the LC9 combined with the pistol being just barely large enough for my hand made it really uncomfortable for me to shoot. The LC9s does not cause me any problems at all and the trigger is much, much better than the non "s" version. I keep my "s" in a holster that covers the trigger guard and once it is out of the holster, the trigger does not seem at all spooky to me as usually carry a cocked and locked 1911 which has a lighter and shorter pull.

 

[webrx]

we tried one at the indoor range

my wife could not keep the LC9 from being pulled off target during the trigger pull, may not have made a difference in an SD situation, but, it did at the range.

she decided to wait on buying a 9 and stick with her .22

I bought an LC9s for me, she took it, so I had to buy another one.

The 9s trigger is not too light, it is a striker fire heavier than a SA trigger, lighter than a DA trigger. It is my primary carry

d

 

[giggitygiggity]

Also, I have the LCP, S&W Shield, and XDS45 as carry guns. I carry the LCP most often because it's smallest. My buddy has the LC9s. the LC9s trigger is definitely better than the LCP and Shield and is on par if not better than the XDS45. It's trigger is very similar to the PPQ.

 

[BlackJack]

Here's another voice for the LC9S Pro. I like the trigger, the fit and finish, the functioning and find it reliable and accurate. I've fired the LC9S and really didn't like all the lawyer-inspired features; slide safety, mag disconnect, raised loaded chamber indicator, etc. The pistol without those features is about perfect as a CCW. I've replaced my SIG P938 with it.