LC9 review

[mrvmax]

I've had an LC9 for a few weeks now and nobody has purchased it yet. I sold my Springfield GI series 1911 today and I am waiting for my STI Ranger II to come in from Dawson so I decided transfer the LC9 from my business to me and use it for concealed carry for a few days. I headed out to PSC around 4:30 today along with a couple hundred rounds of UMC and a handful of Speer Gold Dots to make sure it fired properly before I carry it.
I had an LCP for a while and I like the idea of a small 9mm but I was pretty disappointed with the LC9. First off, the trigger is plain horrible. The trigger pull is extremely long and very uncomfortable to shoot for my large hands. My finger was sore after shooting about 150 rounds from pulling the trigger and the bad ergonomics of the design. Due to the long trigger pull I was pulling my first 8 rounds I fired. I really had to focus on keeping the gun aimed the last part of the trigger pull before it fired. I was kind of used to the nice trigger pull on the CW9 - the CW9 trigger pull is 100% better than the LC9.
Another thing I did not like is the way the slide is held on. Like the LCP there is a pin holding the slide. Unlike the LCP the LC9 pin comes out and does not stay in place. I would much rather have a pin similar to the LCP. I also despise the magazine disconnect and the loaded chamber indicator. I have no need for a loaded chamber indicator, all my handguns stay loaded all the time (except during cleaning) so I never have to wonder if it is loaded or not. It may seem crazy but it puts me in the mindset that it is always loaded.
The second problem I had once I got the trigger pull down was light primer strikes. After the first one I thought it was a fluke but I ended up having at least one FTF every magazine I fired. I had cleaned the gun before I headed to the range but I went ahead and broke it down at the range and gave it a good cleaning. I fired about four more mags through it and it continued to have at least one fail to fire due to light primer strike per magazine. Not good for a self defense gun.
Accuracy was fair considering the horrible trigger pull. I fired freehand at 25 feet and from the bench at 15 yards. The groups seemed to get better the more I fired and got used to it, but since it kept having FTF's I got fed up and headed home.
I have had a few Rugers and have never had any problems. This LC9 was a big let down and I'm going to ship it back. I bought this one from Gallery of Guns so I'll get anther new one to replace it under warranty. The only bad part is that it may be several weeks before they get one in. when it does come in I'll be selling it and not keeping it. Looks like I'll be ordering a Kahr MK9 to carry when I need a small handgun.

BTW, when I get the STI Ranger II in I'll post a small write up. I've been wanting an STI since I toured their plant. I like buying a Texas made gun from a company that is employee owned and who also makes 99% of the individual parts in house.

[Blindref757]

I haven't seen too many good reviews on this gun and I've been looking quite a bit. I love the size and functionality of this gun, but I've just seen way too many people complain about the trigger and how it affects the consistent accuracy. I think I'll be looking for a Kahr in a couple of months!

In your review, you didn't specify if you had FTF with both the UMC and the Speer ammo. Was it one or both brands that you had problems with?

[ryanr1299]

I have to agree. A buddy of mine just picked up an LC9...I can see why, because until you shoot it the thing is awesome. I love the size, look, and feel. It's just a pain to shoot, though. I couldn't hit anything with it. The trigger is just too long. If you're looking for a small single-stack 9mm, the Kahr is the way to go.

[The Annoyed Man]

I have to agree. A buddy of mine just picked up an LC9...I can see why, because until you shoot it the thing is awesome. I love the size, look, and feel. It's just a pain to shoot, though. I couldn't hit anything with it. The trigger is just too long. If you're looking for a small single-stack 9mm, the Kahr is the way to go.

I have a Kahr PM9 and I love it. It is very easy to shoot, and fairly accurate to boot. My wife has a CW9, and that is a great little pistol too. My next .45 will be a CW45.

[mrvmax]

I haven't seen too many good reviews on this gun and I've been looking quite a bit. I love the size and functionality of this gun, but I've just seen way too many people complain about the trigger and how it affects the consistent accuracy. I think I'll be looking for a Kahr in a couple of months!

In your review, you didn't specify if you had FTF with both the UMC and the Speer ammo. Was it one or both brands that you had problems with?

I only had rounds of the Speer with me and none of them failed to fire. I think if I would have had more I would have had FTF with the Speer too.

[InfoTechCHL2007]

I sympathize with the OP's experience with the LC9 but cannot say my experience has been the same.
My LC9 ate 107 rounds of JHP and FMJ ammunition flawlessly the first time out.
The trigger pull and break were clean, and double-taps and rapid fire shots were accurate enough at 7 yards.
You could say my first time out with the LC9 was similar to these reviews:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-LC9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMG ... /GUNS0811/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just my two cents

[terryg]

Morgan,

Have you tried a PF-9 yet? I know you have had a hard time getting them in. I know a lot people think they are too cheap, but I have had no misfeeds. I did have some magazine drops while firing when I used the pinky extension - but once I stopped using the extension it has been fine. I added a Houge Hand-all Jr. to the grip which increased the shooting comfort greatly.

While I like most things about the PM9 and the CW9, I actually prefer the trigger on the PF-9 to either of them.

[The Annoyed Man]

Morgan,

Have you tried a PF-9 yet? I know you have had a hard time getting them in. I know a lot people think they are too cheap, but I have had no misfeeds. I did have some magazine drops while firing when I used the pinky extension - but once I stopped using the extension it has been fine. I added a Houge Hand-all Jr. to the grip which increased the shooting comfort greatly.

While I like most things about the PM9 and the CW9, I actually prefer the trigger on the PF-9 to either of them.

Is that trigger better than on a Kel-Tec P3AT? I ask because I couldn't stand that trigger and finally sold the gun, and the one PF9 I have dry-fired seemed gritty to me.

Gun Tests magazine did a recent comparison of the PF9 to the LC9, and they preferred the Kel-Tec. http://www.gun-tests.com/issues/23_4/fe ... 868-1.html (note: you have to be a subscriber to be able to read the entire article). Their final reasoning was that although the Ruger had a nicer fit/finish to it than the Kel-Tec, it was 2.5 oz heavier, and $111 more.

In this review (http://www.gun-tests.com/issues/23_6/fe ... 886-1.html) of the Kahr CM9, they said (again, you have to be registered to see this part):

We really liked the Kahr CM9. We tried it in rapid-fire against the same-size Kimber Solo and our previous favorite, the slightly larger Kel-Tec PF-9. In short, there is no way the Kimber, as delivered, could match our results with the Kahr CM9 in our hands, because the Kimber consistently spun sideways after the first shot, and also gave us a very painful gouge on our third finger. Several times our shooter, in extreme haste, missed the small safety of the Kimber and was unable to get off a shot. The Kimber’s trigger was excellent, but most of us preferred the Kahr for hand comfort, control, and its superior ability to land multiple fast shots. The Kel-Tec PF-9 was about as fast and about as controllable as the Kahr, or perhaps a bit easier to control because its grip is just a little larger. However, with heavy loads the PF-9 does get the shooter’s attention.

Our Team Said: Bottom line, of all the small nines tested by our Idaho team thus far (the Sig Sauer P290 is next), we like the Kel-Tec PF-9 the best with the Kahr CM9 next. The $565 price of the Kahr will always tend to keep it in second place, compared to the Kel-Tec’s very low price of $333. By the way, now that we’ve tested the Kahr CM9, we see no pressing reason to buy the more costly PM9.

My own perception is this: Given the price difference, the Kel-Tec is probably the better deal. I don't know what PF9s are actually going for, but CM9s can probably be found in the $450 range....so perhaps the price difference isn't quite as dramatic as when comparing MSRPs. Also, I haven't held both pistols side by side, but the CM9 is a 6+1 capacity pistol, compared to the PF9's 7+1 capacity—which puts the PF9 squarely in competition with the CW9. That means that it isn't really a pocket pistol—which the CM9/PM9/MK9 most definitely is; so we're talking about somewhat different pistols to begin with. I have compared the PF9 to the CW9 side by side, although I haven't fired the PF9, but I have dry-fired both pistols side by side. The CW9 is 3.1 oz heavier than the PF9. I've measured my wife's CW9 trigger on a Lyman digital trigger pull gage, and it averages out to 6 lbs even, compared to the 5 lbs claimed by Kel-Tec for the PF9; but seat of the pants, I couldn't tell any difference in pull weight, and the Kahr trigger was not as gritty. The one thing I really liked about the Kahr was the tactile feel. The pronounced checking on front and back straps makes it very controllable under recoil....even the smaller "M" series pistols. Little things, like fit and finish, were of higher quality on the Kahr. I'm not saying that the PF9 is a bad pistol. For the price, it is probably a great pistol. But to some extent, you do get what you pay for. I could have saved money by buying a PF9, but I don't have any regrets about buying either of our Kahrs.

[mrvmax]

Through the Kahr NRA instructor program the Kahr mk9 is $410. The PF9 is much less but not as refined. The pf9 trigger is better than the LC9.

[The Annoyed Man]

Through the Kahr NRA instructor program the Kahr mk9 is $410. The PF9 is much less but not as refined. The pf9 trigger is better than the LC9.

I forgot about that program. My NRA Basic Pistol Instructor's class instructor told us about it. I'll have to remember it the next time I buy a gun.

[mrvmax]

Through the Kahr NRA instructor program the Kahr mk9 is $410. The PF9 is much less but not as refined. The pf9 trigger is better than the LC9.

I forgot about that program. My NRA Basic Pistol Instructor's class instructor told us about it. I'll have to remember it the next time I buy a gun.

I can send you the pdf order form if you need it. You can get Kahr, Auto Ordnance (Tommy Gun) and some magnum Research (if you just have to have a .50 AE semi auto).

[mrvmax]

I sympathize with the OP's experience with the LC9 but cannot say my experience has been the same.
My LC9 ate 107 rounds of JHP and FMJ ammunition flawlessly the first time out.
The trigger pull and break were clean, and double-taps and rapid fire shots were accurate enough at 7 yards.
You could say my first time out with the LC9 was similar to these reviews:

" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-LC9.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://fmgpublications.ipaperus.com/FMG ... /GUNS0811/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Just my two cents

My guess is that you have small hands. I have bug mitts so it is much harder to get a decent grip where it is comfortable to pull the trigger three feet back so it will fire (maybe I'm exaggerating a bit but it seems like a 3 foot trigger pull).

[SQLGeek]

I have smaller hands and still found the LC9 trigger difficult. Not as dificult as you it seems but it took me a couple of magazines to get a feel for shooting it. All in all, I like it. Would like it more if the trigger could be improved. I think I still want one for pocket carry.

[terryg]

Is that trigger better than on a Kel-Tec P3AT? I ask because I couldn't stand that trigger and finally sold the gun, and the one PF9 I have dry-fired seemed gritty to me.

I don't know about the P3AT - but it is far superior to the Kel-tec P11. I almost didn't try to PF9 in the counter because the P11 trigger was bad.

Gun Tests magazine did a recent comparison of the PF9 to the LC9, and they preferred the Kel-Tec. http://www.gun-tests.com/issues/23_4/fe ... 868-1.html (note: you have to be a subscriber to be able to read the entire article). Their final reasoning was that although the Ruger had a nicer fit/finish to it than the Kel-Tec, it was 2.5 oz heavier, and $111 more.

That seems pretty consistent with what I have read. Many people (rightly so) knock the magazine safety. But it is removable like my SR9c, so I wouldn't let it stop me. But other than that, I don't see anything it has to offer over the PF9.

My own perception is this: Given the price difference, the Kel-Tec is probably the better deal. I don't know what PF9s are actually going for, but CM9s can probably be found in the $450 range....so perhaps the price difference isn't quite as dramatic as when comparing MSRPs. Also, I haven't held both pistols side by side, but the CM9 is a 6+1 capacity pistol, compared to the PF9's 7+1 capacity—which puts the PF9 squarely in competition with the CW9. That means that it isn't really a pocket pistol—which the CM9/PM9/MK9 most definitely is; so we're talking about somewhat different pistols to begin with. I have compared the PF9 to the CW9 side by side, although I haven't fired the PF9, but I have dry-fired both pistols side by side. The CW9 is 3.1 oz heavier than the PF9. I've measured my wife's CW9 trigger on a Lyman digital trigger pull gage, and it averages out to 6 lbs even, compared to the 5 lbs claimed by Kel-Tec for the PF9; but seat of the pants, I couldn't tell any difference in pull weight, and the Kahr trigger was not as gritty. The one thing I really liked about the Kahr was the tactile feel. The pronounced checking on front and back straps makes it very controllable under recoil....even the smaller "M" series pistols. Little things, like fit and finish, were of higher quality on the Kahr. I'm not saying that the PF9 is a bad pistol. For the price, it is probably a great pistol. But to some extent, you do get what you pay for. I could have saved money by buying a PF9, but I don't have any regrets about buying either of our Kahrs.

I think that's about right. There is no question the PF9 lacks fit and finish. I mean you can see daylight and the spring between the slide and the frame:


I guess I was just surprised when I tried the Kahr's. Given the price, I was expecting a really smooth trigger. Granted I haven't actually fired either of them - just fingered them in the store. But I remember thinking that one of them had a much worse trigger than the PF-9. It felt really gritty - I don't remember which model. And the other was pretty close to the same pull and weight as the PF9's. But these were also display models and that can make all of the difference in the world.

[The Annoyed Man]

I guess I was just surprised when I tried the Kahr's. Given the price, I was expecting a really smooth trigger. Granted I haven't actually fired either of them - just fingered them in the store. But I remember thinking that one of them had a much worse trigger than the PF-9. It felt really gritty - I don't remember which model. And the other was pretty close to the same pull and weight as the PF9's. But these were also display models and that can make all of the difference in the world.

Lubrication might have had something to do with it, and break-in might have also. I bought my first Kahr, the PM9, used and the trigger was already well broken in and very smooth. The trigger on my wife's CW9 is not quite as smooth although it is still pretty good. I've heard from others that breaking in makes a world of difference, so I'm assuming that hers will improve over time. But realistically, even if it never did, it would be just fine.