TexasCHLforum.com

Bought the LC9 a couple weeks ago and really like it -- thin, great for carry, etc.

Today at the range the trigger stopped working. I'm able to pull the trigger but the hammer does nothing. Employee at the range looked at it and told me theirs had the exact same problem, breaking over and over, and after 5 trips back to Ruger they just stopped renting it out. He said theirs broke around every 100 rounds. Mine made it to about 150. Something about a spring breaking.

Yes I know it's not a range gun but 150 rounds is kind of soon for a malfunction. Calling Ruger tomorrow!

Please keep posting on your progress. I was looking to buy one, and I havent heard of this malfunction before. I am interested to see where this goes and if there has been any other problems.

Nice thing about Ruger, you can expect them to email you a UPS shipping document so the shipping is on their dime, and they'll take care of it.

Every brand of guns will have some percentage with quality issues. That is why I am partial to brands like Ruger that are known to stand behind their product.

StuffandThings wrote:He said theirs broke around every 100 rounds. Mine made it to about 150.

Please keep us posted as to what Ruger has to say and the eventual resolution. I have a LC9 that has at least 600+ rounds down range without any problems of any type, but if the trigger failing is an issue that keeps turning up I certainly want to follow reports on the malfunction.

andy123, given my own experience without any problems, I often carry it... easy to conceal and light weight... and right now it is one of two in my edc rotation. Just make sure to shoot it a whole bunch, because it's true what folks are saying about its very long trigger.

Jumping Frog wrote:Nice thing about Ruger, you can expect them to email you a UPS shipping document so the shipping is on their dime, and they'll take care of it.

Every brand of guns will have some percentage with quality issues. That is why I am partial to brands like Ruger that are known to stand behind their product.

Not to mention a free magazine or hat usually follows it home...

wgoforth wrote:

Jumping Frog wrote:Nice thing about Ruger, you can expect them to email you a UPS shipping document so the shipping is on their dime, and they'll take care of it.

Every brand of guns will have some percentage with quality issues. That is why I am partial to brands like Ruger that are known to stand behind their product.

Not to mention a free magazine or hat usually follows it home...

That's your payment for being a beta tester. It's cheaper for the gun companies to sell guns to people who want the "newest and bestest" and fix those that break or after a certain percentage re engineer and issue a recall. I expect a gun to work right from day one and will not buy a new model until all the bugs have been worked out. Waiting one year is not too long to put off buying a new model gun considering. If you HAVE to use it, the rest of your life may be on the line.

I shot a buddies new lc9 yesterday. He was having light primer strikes the first time he shot it. No problems yesterday though. Glad I got to shoot it. I had been thinking of getting one. It wasn't horrible, but the long trigger and trigger reset bothered me enough that i'll be sticking with my glock 26.

MoJo wrote: That's your payment for being a beta tester.

True dat. I learned with a Kahr P9 that had trigger problems - and a whole host of other issues - that new guns can have some severe teething problems, no matter WHAT the gun rags say. After numerous trips back to the factory (Kahr paid shipping both ways) they ultimately replaced the gun.

Which I traded immediately for a G26, which isn't as neat a package . . . but it has the virtue of actually working.

Really sad how much the gun rags are "in the bag" for the manufacturers. It seems like they either get specially prepped guns, rather than off the line, or they brush off any failures. I read one test where they tested 3 each of five models of. 380's. All 5 models had issues. But the summary was that they would make good carry guns and were acceptably reliable. Uh, yeah.

try Gun Tests magazine. I believe them to be unbiased.

punkndisorderly wrote:Really sad how much the gun rags are "in the bag" for the manufacturers. It seems like they either get specially prepped guns, rather than off the line, or they brush off any failures. I read one test where they tested 3 each of five models of. 380's. All 5 models had issues. But the summary was that they would make good carry guns and were acceptably reliable. Uh, yeah.

I think I read the same article, sad how an unreliable gun(s) can still get the thumbs up from a reviewer.

The only gun rag I get is "The American Rifleman" that's because I comes with my membership. I read gun reviews like I read the Sunday Funnies, for entertainment.

Of your big name gun writers I doubt there are any who hasn't at one time or another(rimes with the name of a garden tool) themselves for some gun maker. They say there isn't anything a gun writer won't do to get another free gun.

This may be getting a little far off topic, but I think it applies especially to Ruger's newer offerings, among others. It seems like many of the manufacturers are rushing products out when they're 90%trying "there". They ship hand picked samples to the gun writers who give the guns glowing reviews. Then the customers get to deal with the faulty products. Manufacturers rely on the fact that most of those guns will get stuffed into a drawer or safe and never see 100 rounds. They'd rather fix the ones that make it back to them than make sure it works to begin with.

The gun writers are what disurbs me the most. They know full well that the latest isn't the greatest yet plug it dutifully. That's all well and good for a hunting rifle or duck gun. That's downright wrong for firearms destined for home protection, concealed carry, or duty use.

Rex B wrote:try Gun Tests magazine. I believe them to be unbiased.

Many years ago, Gun Tests trashed the Kahr K-40. I bought it anyway and have never regretted it. I haven't trusted any of their reviews since.

punkndisorderly wrote:The gun writers are what disurbs me the most. They know full well that the latest isn't the greatest yet plug it dutifully. That's all well and good for a hunting rifle or duck gun. That's downright wrong for firearms destined for home protection, concealed carry, or duty use.

Ya gotta remember the symbiotic relationship between manufacturers and reviewers is designed to benefit both parties. Yeah, the reviewer usually gets a pre-production gun (and they often say that in their reviews) - you can guess that the gun's been gone over by the company's gunsmith before it's shipped out. And, the reviewer won't fudge any facts, but opinions are the most important part of the review, at least to me, and you can often read between the lines when something goes wrong and the reviewer doesn't want to come out and say it.

Some organizations that review stuff go out and purchase the items off-the-shelf. For example, Consumers Union and the American Radio Relay League (ARRL) (the national organization for ham radio operators). Their reviews I feel like I can trust to be as unbiased as is possible. Otherwise, a reviewer who wants to keep on getting the newest and greatest has to play a certain amount of ball with the manufacturers.

As for the LC-9 reviews... well, I guess time will tell how "ready for prime time" the gun is in its first generation.