This might be interesting; new Ruger LC9s

[Chuck Haggard]

I didn't see them making a striker fired version;

http://www.ruger.com/products/lc9s/models.html

[_JD_]

Would still rather have a Shield. I've never been impressed with Ruger Autos of any flavor. My mother in law has a LC9, that trigger is a beast. Let's hope this is genuine improvement and not the Ruger equivalent of a NY1 trigger etc.

Sent via Tapatalk and still using real words.

[Mitchell, Esq.]

Someone wants a piece of the shield market...

[Chuck Haggard]

Not that I work for Ruger or anything, but ;


Striker-Fired
Striker-fired version of the award-winning LC9® has a short, light, crisp trigger pull for faster, more accurate shooting.

Squinting at the graph they have on the new add it appears the trigger is supposed to be in the 5 1/2 pound range

[LSP972]

I hope that trigger is better than the original hammer one; the three I have examined were simply… bad. Gritty, and HARD. One belonged to a pal; we gutted it and removed the magazine disconnect (and that was an ordeal all by itself), which cleaned it up a lot. It still was rather stiff; no problem for Phyllis Soccer-Mom to snatch in a panic, but definitely not conducive to any sort of accuracy work.

And something else we noticed… perhaps it was just us, but the pistol "slams" back into your hand very much like a Bryco 59- which is, without doubt, the most uncomfortable-to-shoot 9mm pistol I have ever handled. In my book, the LC9 is a close second.

My pal read somewhere that latest-production LC9s have considerably better triggers. I certainly hope so.

.

[Chuck Haggard]

Being a direct rip-off of the Kel Tec PF9 I would expect that the recoil is about the same, which means unpleasant.

[LSP972]

I've never been impressed with Ruger Autos of any flavor.

Ditto. Many years ago, I was given a MK II bull barrel .22, which I still have and the kids shoot occasionally. But it would be far down the list on my choices of what .22 auto to purchase.

And yes, I recognize that most of the P-series pistols are sturdy, reliable guns; in a weak moment, I traded into a P345 at one point that made a decent car gun, but sold it to someone who wanted it worse than I did.

I actually purchased my first Ruger handgun just the other day; a birdshead Vaquero in .45 ACP with a stumpy barrel (3.5" or so). I have a lot of old .45 ammo I loaded years ago for bullseye; i.e., light loads with 185gr SWC bullets. The Vaquero is great fun to shoot with that stuff. My first-ever single action revolver too… after more than 45 years of owning and shooting handguns.

But the DA revolvers and other pistols by Ruger just never have interested me at all.

And now that there is a variant of the Shield sans manual safety, I would absolutely choose one of those over this thing; better trigger notwithstanding.

.

[LSP972]

Being a direct rip-off of the Kel Tec PF9 I would expect that the recoil is about the same...

Worse. Trust me; I shoot more than my share of PF9s too.

.

[Stephen]

I'm pretty sure the LC* guns have been a massive sales bonanza for Ruger. I'm not at all surprised to see them continuing to expand the line. They probably have even more additions in the pipeline. A SFA system applied to the LCP would be cool.

Of course I'll never buy a gun with that abomination of a loaded chamber indicator they use. I have an irrational hatred of that thing.

[Rich]

I wouldn't even try it. I have a hard enough time shooting lite loads in my M642 left handed....
Now if I could carry a M640 in 357mag in my L pocket of cargo shorts I would never buy a AW again.


I got burn one 1 Ruger a P85. It ran great but wouldn't group. I also ran across a NIB Mini 14 that shot 3 feet to the left at 25Y They put a new barrel on it. my other mini 14 and mini 30 were fine.
I also have love for the GP100 andSP101 even though I`m a S&W revolver Fan Boy

[JonInWA]

I'm exceptionally pleased with my P89, GP100 and Security Six. I've been pretty unimpressed with pretty much any of their centerfire semi-automatics since William Ruger passed away; they basically seem to me re-hashes/re-packaging of other manufacture's efforts. The LC revolvers I haven had much interest in personally, but I'm prepared to have an open mind towards them.

Best, Jon

[Chuck Haggard]

I wish they were still making the Security and Speed Sixes

[Clay]

I can see Ruger doing very well with this gun. My wife would be getting one of these if she hadn't just bought a Gen 4 Glock 26.

Speaking of Ruger's reliability, etc - My wife's LC9 was far more reliable than her Shield. Her Shield wouldn't go through a magazine without a malfunction, while her LC9 went through almost 500 rounds of assorted JHP's and FMJ without a single malfunction. My two LCP's have been flawless as well. I also ended up with two dud M&P's - one compact 9 that wouldn't run and a full size 9 that grouped about 10" at 25 yds in a rest. A small sampling to be sure, but in my experience Ruger has put out better fare than S&W, for a lot less money as well.

I definitely prefer somewhat "higher end" guns, and have often told new buyers to start at Glock and work their way up, so to speak, but my views have changed after buying several $500-$600 crap guns in the last seven years.

Ruger makes some solid guns and prices them right, and I would recommend them over any auto S&W makes, although I am certainly biased by my own experiences.

[Totem Polar]

Whoa. This came from out of nowhere, so far as my awareness is concerned. Maybe Ruger has been monitoring all the Glock 42 threads...

Same size, better trigger, better chambering. Makes me go "hmmmm".

[Chuck Whitlock]

I wish they were still making the Security and Speed Sixes

Me, too.

[Palmguy]

I can see Ruger doing very well with this gun. My wife would be getting one of these if she hadn't just bought a Gen 4 Glock 26.

Speaking of Ruger's reliability, etc - My wife's LC9 was far more reliable than her Shield. Her Shield wouldn't go through a magazine without a malfunction, while her LC9 went through almost 500 rounds of assorted JHP's and FMJ without a single malfunction. My two LCP's have been flawless as well. I also ended up with two dud M&P's - one compact 9 that wouldn't run and a full size 9 that grouped about 10" at 25 yds in a rest. A small sampling to be sure, but in my experience Ruger has put out better fare than S&W, for a lot less money as well.

I definitely prefer somewhat "higher end" guns, and have often told new buyers to start at Glock and work their way up, so to speak, but my views have changed after buying several $500-$600 crap guns in the last seven years.

Ruger makes some solid guns and prices them right, and I would recommend them over any auto S&W makes, although I am certainly biased by my own experiences.

Did you get S&W to look at your Shield or did you just write it off?

Counterpoint: My Shields work just fine, and my sister's LC9 has as well. Taking reliability out of the equation, as they are the same in my experience, the Shield is a much preferable gun in terms of recoil, sight options, trigger, lack of the comical Ruger LCI......virtually everything. The Shield shoots like a larger gun and the trigger is good, particularly with the Apex sear/striker block.

All that said, hopefully the striker fired LC9 does indeed have a better trigger.

[MVS]

Whoa. This came from out of nowhere, so far as my awareness is concerned. Maybe Ruger has been monitoring all the Glock 42 threads...

Same size, better trigger, better chambering. Makes me go "hmmmm".

Indeed, we recently bought a G42 to try instead of my wife's LC9 which has a horrible trigger and is unreliable with hollow points.

[Totem Polar]

Don't get me wrong, I really like my G42. This s version Ruger seems to be addressing the chief criticism of the little Glock though.

[MGW]

I don't like Ruger automatics at all. For some reason the LC9 always reminded me of the cap guns I had as a kid. No one in their right mind would buy an LC9s over a Shield. I'm not saying the Ruger is junk, I just believe the Shield is a higher quality firearm, more shootable, has better sight options, and will be more reliable long term.

That being said, they will sell boat loads of them. There are tons of Ruger fans out there and the price point is just enough under the Shield to keep them moving.

I'm really surprised Ruger didn't make a bigger deal about the release.

[Clay]

I don't like Ruger automatics at all. For some reason the LC9 always reminded me of the cap guns I had as a kid. No one in their right mind would buy an LC9s over a Shield. I'm not saying the Ruger is junk, I just believe the Shield is a higher quality firearm, more shootable, has better sight options, and will be more reliable long term.

I would have agreed 100% until my wife bought both of them.

[Chuck Whitlock]

the Shield is a much preferable gun in terms of recoil, sight options, trigger, lack of the comical Ruger LCI......virtually everything.


I just believe the Shield is a higher quality firearm, more shootable, has better sight options, and will be more reliable long term.


All the above is true, but........

Two weeks ago I had my 70 yr old parents at the range and we rented a 9mm Shield for them to try for those very reasons (it didn't blow them away). I ran a couple of mags through it and was all, "meh". Although it is virtually identical in all respects to my Kahr CW9, for me and my hand, the Shield's grip is fatter front-to-rear and has a shorter frontstrap. I prefer the Kahr grip by a large margin. Kinda strange because I am really digging my FS M&P9.

(The one my folks liked shooting best of all?........Dad's Taurus PT111 Millenium Pro 9mm. So now they each have one. As long as they haven't choked so far.....)

[MGW]

I was unimpressed with the Shield the first time I shot one too. The more I shoot mine though the more I like it for what it is. I've tried a M&P 9c expecting to like it as much as the Shield and just couldn't get comfortable with it for some reason.

[RevolverRob]

I guess I'm confused why people buy Shields or Rugers when Kahrs exist. The CM9 costs less than a Shield and about what an LC9 does and they are almost the same size, only the Kahr is about twice as easy to shoot, half as ugly, and has a trigger that doesn't make you want to punch a wall. My Shield experience hasn't been much better (I couldn't hit anything with the gun and I found the quality of it...distasteful), but I guess I just feel like that because I know Smith can build a better gun, they did with the 3913 and CS9.

Anyways a SFA LC9 might actually be what the doctor ordered, a surrogate for the non-existent Glock XX single-stack 9mm?

-Rob

[Chuck Haggard]

I've owned three Kahr PM9s, only one of those three would run at all and it's finicky about what ammo it likes. My experience with the Shields has been different than yours.

[Psychlone]

Here's a review on it, according to the reviewer the trigger seems to be better and the recoil doesn't look that bad to me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mecT6TIXbgE

[LSP972]

I guess I'm confused why people buy Shields or Rugers when Kahrs exist.

Interesting three-way.

I had a PM9, was rather pleased with its inherent accuracy and reliability, but suffered one of those moments of "sudden dumb-a$$" and sold it. Wouldn't mind having it back. THAT one; like Chuck said, you either get a good one or you don't. I have been SO close to buying a PM9, because to me its about perfect for a small 9mm carry piece; but now that we're reasonably certain the long-awaited Glock in that style is coming…

I previously wrote about my LC9 experience; not impressed, have no use for one… SFA or not.

I had high hopes for the Shield; even had a holster made for it. I put 500 or so rounds through it, it was quite reliable with various FMJ and JHP bullet configurations, but the aspect ratio of the grip that you noted (long in the bore axis yet skinny) caused it to squirm in my hand under recoil. I could have probably trained through that, but in combination with the manual safety and the trigger-recall-that-wasn't… I lost interest and passed it along to a deputy sheriff.

So it was back to the mid-sized guns for me. No trouble concealing those in my relaxed post-retirement dress code, but I'd like a smaller/lighter piece just because. I have a B-prefix G26 from 1996 that "qualifies" (and I actually carried that one mexican for a year or so when we were allowed to wear polo shirts and slacks on non-court days), but… its a Glock.;)

I have been eagerly awaiting the promised P30SK. The P2000SK has a finger groove hump on the front strap that is in exactly the wrong place for me, and while I could grind that down I'd rather not. Now, I'm wondering if the P30SK will even show up… a VP9SK seems more likely.

This (the search for a small, light 9mm carry piece) is one of those rabbit holes with too many branches, and no end to any of them…

.

[RevolverRob]

I've owned three Kahr PM9s, only one of those three would run at all and it's finicky about what ammo it likes. My experience with the Shields has been different than yours.

Chuck, you might look at the newest CM and PM guns (note: not suggesting you buy one, but maybe try out one if you get a chance). It's actually been quite a while since I've seen anyone complain of a new Kahr having major issues even during the "break-in" period that Kahr recommends. They made some pretty serious engineering improvements along the way in both the guns and magazines, especially since 2011-2012. They seem to be much better guns for it.

I'm not suggesting the Shield I tried didn't work, it did. But like others I noted the longer grip that made it harder to shoot for me, personally. I have large hands (L-XL gloves), but they are not what gargantuan and I had a hard time with the Shield, my wife had an even harder time. It's actually the same story with my 3913 and the CS9s I have shot, a longer grip makes the 3913 squirm in my hand during shooting, when stacked next to a Kahr CW9/P9, I am faster and more accurate with the Kahr. So, I have a Kahr for carrying a 3913 for fun.

The Shield has the advantage of easily available sights, but actually the Kahrs have a fairly good cross-section of sights available, the LC9 is a total loser in that department.

[MGW]

I guess I'm confused why people buy Shields or Rugers when Kahrs exist. The CM9 costs less than a Shield and about what an LC9 does and they are almost the same size, only the Kahr is about twice as easy to shoot, half as ugly, and has a trigger that doesn't make you want to punch a wall. My Shield experience hasn't been much better (I couldn't hit anything with the gun and I found the quality of it...distasteful), but I guess I just feel like that because I know Smith can build a better gun, they did with the 3913 and CS9.

Anyways a SFA LC9 might actually be what the doctor ordered, a surrogate for the non-existent Glock XX single-stack 9mm?

-Rob

The main reason is I just don't like Kahrs. Personal preference but I don't like the trigger pull or trigger reach. I like the sight options for the Shield even though I haven't changed them yet. Talon grips eliminated any movement while shooting.

I think more than anything it boils down to personal preference more than anything. I think I've tried every single stack out there, except the Nano, and just like the Smith the best.

What quality issues did you have with your Shield?

[LittleLebowski]

Being a direct rip-off of the Kel Tec PF9 I would expect that the recoil is about the same, which means unpleasant.

Did KelTec not patent their designs or something?

[ScotchMan]

Wow, looking at the physical trigger itself, that thing looks so thin I could break it in half if it didn't function properly for some reason.

http://www.ruger.com/products/lc9s/images/3235.jpg

[RevolverRob]

What quality issues did you have with your Shield?

Ah so this boils down to - None. I had no issues with gun function, it's just it never felt right. The gun is a bit top heavy, chunky, and feels less well balanced. There were only a few minor sharp edges, I definitely was not a fan of the tiny thumb safety nor was I fan of just leaving it off, I never had an inadvertent activation, but I was always back-of-the-mind worried about it. Now the safety-less guns solve that problem. I've honestly never been a fan of the M&P trigger in any gun and always find its quality to be hit and miss. Mine was a miss with a pretty nasty trigger that didn't help a light and squirming gun in my hand. I did have a dot pop-out of the front sight on my gun, but I don't really see that as a major problem. The issue for me is - Having had a CS9 in the past and owning a 3913, I feel the same way every time I pick up an M&P - I know Smith can build better guns, but I also know they can't make 3rd gen guns today, because they would be loss-leaders to sell them. But I just can't hold one of the polymer guns and not get a bad taste in my mouth. That's a personal preference thing, not something that most folks contend with, when buying a Shield.

And then when you compare a Shield to a PM9, but especially a PPS the other major finish-quality and trigger-quality issues pop-up.

RE: I like the Kahr triggers. A lot of folks have complained of "gritty, long, heavy triggers". The ones in my latest Kahrs are 7-8 pounds, with a smooth takeup and crisp predictable break, and even a decent return. Comparable to DA revolver triggers and ten-times better than most stock J-Frames produced today. If you shoot striker guns though - you won't find the Kahr trigger to your taste. If you shot TDAs or DA guns a bunch you might find it more amenable.

-Rob

[MGW]

Ah so this boils down to - None. I had no issues with gun function, it's just it never felt right. The gun is a bit top heavy, chunky, and feels less well balanced. There were only a few minor sharp edges, I definitely was not a fan of the tiny thumb safety nor was I fan of just leaving it off, I never had an inadvertent activation, but I was always back-of-the-mind worried about it. Now the safety-less guns solve that problem. I've honestly never been a fan of the M&P trigger in any gun and always find its quality to be hit and miss. Mine was a miss with a pretty nasty trigger that didn't help a light and squirming gun in my hand.

-Rob

All perfectly valid reasons not to like a pistol in my book. I'm not a fan of the safety either. I'm actually considering buying one without a thumb safety for carry and keeping this one to train with.

Shield triggers, the first one I owned was bad and this one is okay. I've considered dropping in some Apex stuff but haven't yet. If I ever change sights I might go ahead and do some trigger work.

And I'm weird, I like J frame triggers better than Kahr triggers. I currently own a 442 pro and the trigger was pretty smooth out of the box. A little heavy but smooth otherwise.

[Beat Trash]

Our head armor detail stripped his LC9 one day while I was there, after the LC9 first came out. He ran out to buy one, as he loves ALL things Ruger. I wasn't impressed as a lot of the parts appeared a bit on the flimsy side.

I owned a PPS 9mm for about 6 months and really liked the gun. But when the Shield came out, I stumbled onto one the first week after they were released. I couldn't justify keeping both, so I sold the PPS. Wish I would have kept that gun as it outshot every Shield I have fired to date.

My PM9 was bought in 2005. Not many rounds through it, but enough to verify it's reliability. The only issue with it is it's too small for my mitts. Been meaning to sell it off, but Kahr is competing with their own product line with the pricing of the CW series.

I have zero interest in this new striker fired Ruger LC9. But I also think this new Ruger will sell extremely well, depending on the price point. The same crowd that flocks to buy their full-size 9mm pistols will be buying this for their CCW pistol. I don't see most of these customers putting high round counts through the guns though. Because, well... "Bullets are expensive"!

[John Hearne]

I think that the Kahr P9 Covert (short frame takes PM9 magazine with P9 slide (3.5" barrel and simpler recoil system)) is the ideal pocket gun. It's slightly shorter height (4.0" versus 4.25-4.5" of other offerings) makes it very pocket friendly. I carry mine whenever I can't carry a real gun.

I love everything about it but the trigger. The trigger, which is very smooth, is completely different from my my main carry gun. Every time I put that gun on, I tell myself to run the trigger all the way out if you have to use it.

I would kill for a pistol with a 4" height and a classic striker fired trigger system.



Sent from my HTC One X using Tapatalk

[Chuck Whitlock]

They made some pretty serious engineering improvements along the way in both the guns and magazines, especially since 2011-2012. They seem to be much better guns for it.

I was unaware of this......just assumed I'd lucked into a good sample.



RE: I like the Kahr triggers. A lot of folks have complained of "gritty, long, heavy triggers". The ones in my latest Kahrs are 7-8 pounds, with a smooth takeup and crisp predictable break, and even a decent return. Comparable to DA revolver triggers and ten-times better than most stock J-Frames produced today. If you shoot striker guns though - you won't find the Kahr trigger to your taste. If you shot TDAs or DA guns a bunch you might find it more amenable.

+1.
I cut my teeth on DA revolvers, and I like the NY-1 trigger spring in my Glocks, so maybe that is just the way I lean. I do agree that a shooter who is hung up on "reset" may likely have issues with them.

[s0nspark]

I would be shocked if the LC9s could touch my XDs in terms of recoil and manageability... and I am reeeeally not a fan of the magazine disconnect or the micro-thumbsafety.

[LSP972]

The trigger... is completely different from my my main carry gun.

That's the main reason I haven't bought a P9.

But you know what? Think how far the genre of small 9mms has progressed. I remember (and I bet you do too; I know Chuck does ;) ) when a Devel or ASP was the epitome of a small 9mm concealed-carry pistol. Today, neither of those would even "make the cut".

I've been discussing all of this with my gun-savvy bride, and she told me the other day to quit whining and CHOOSE one, already.:o

Sigh…

.

[wmu12071]

Had the chance to shoot one recently. The trigger isn't bad. The sad part is I didn't get a whole lot of time with it because the recoil spring assembly was malfunctioning and not allowing the slide to sit all the way forward.

[Trukinjp13]

I'm definitely in the very impressed by the shield group. I love mine. Feels good in the hand recoil is nothing for such a small gun. Has fed everything I have put through it . Balance is great for me. My woman will shoot the shield any day over my fns-9 or the m&p9c I used to have. Trigger smoothed out nicely after 400 rounds and is very accurate for the barrel size. I use it 80% of the time for carry. When I run the fns I put the shield in a desantis ankle rig and rides great with the calf strap. Ruger better step up with a non pf9 clone if they think they can compete.

[md8232]

My 9s will be delivered tomorrow. I wrote to the folks at Galloway asking what they will offer for it.
Their response, "Right now we are in the development stages for parts on the LC9s. We'll be working on a multitude of parts, including a new striker, guide rod assembly, trigger, spring kit, and possibly a new sear as well."

[TR675]

I had high hopes for the Shield; even had a holster made for it. I put 500 or so rounds through it, it was quite reliable with various FMJ and JHP bullet configurations, but the aspect ratio of the grip that you noted (long in the bore axis yet skinny) caused it to squirm in my hand under recoil. I could have probably trained through that, but in combination with the manual safety and the trigger-recall-that-wasn't… I lost interest and passed it along to a deputy sheriff.

This is the biggest problem I had with the Shield. Impossible for me to shoot well. Slipping on a Hogue Handall Jr. made all the difference in the world.

Now if I could just drift the rear sight over a tetch to correct the POA/POI differences the Shield would be dandy, but I think they welded that sucker on.

[HeadHunter]

I love everything about it but the trigger. The trigger, which is very smooth, is completely different from my my main carry gun. Every time I put that gun on, I tell myself to run the trigger all the way out if you have to use it.

Flip and press, my friend, flip and press.

My CW9, purchased earlier this year, has proven very reliable.

[gwgw60]

I have both the Shield and LC9. I like the LC9 better and shoot it better. The LC9 works better for me for pocket carry. I see the other comments, but my LC9 trigger is smooth. I also shoot DA revolvers, and have no issues with the LC9 trigger. I like the loaded chamber indicator and have no problem with it obscuring the sights. I'm looking forward to trying out the striker version.

[ReverendMeat]

The trigger on the LC9s is great, much better than the shield, XDs, or PPS. Even though I found it highly unpleasant to shoot (due to the trigger guard violently slapping my trigger finger, something I notice only on random guns here and there; HK USP/P2000, SIG P225, Shield, Kahr) I got good groups out of it, shot it as well as I did my P239. We put 250 rounds through it and it did just fine, if it weren't for the manual safety and mag disconnect I'd buy it over the Shield any day.

And as far as the Shield being more reliable, I dunno. At the shop I seem to get far more people coming back with Shield issues than LC9 issues.

[LSP972]

And as far as the Shield being more reliable, I dunno. At the shop I seem to get far more people coming back with Shield issues than LC9 issues.

Perhaps that is because the Shield owners are actually shooting their new pistols?

You're not the only one who finds the LC9 uncomfortable to shoot.

.

[ReverendMeat]

That sounds logical and I see where you're coming from given that there seems to be an overall preference for the Shield here, but I thought about it a bit and I see no difference between the type of person who buys a shield vs. the type of person who buys an LC9. We sell more Shields, primarily because the name is easy to remember so people ask about it more (same with Bodyguard, Solo, Judge, etc), and because "it feels good in the hand."

[LSP972]

I see no difference between the type of person who buys a shield vs. the type of person who buys an LC9.

You'll get no argument from me regarding that statement.

.

[John Hearne]

I was able to handle one of the LC9S's at the local gun store yesterday. While the trigger is "decent" the reset is still very much DAO. It was definitely a "flip and press" setup. :(

[GJM]

How is the LC9S size wise? My wife went (really I semi forced her to) and checked out a Shield, for use as something smaller than her G26, and more capable than her G42. Didn't like it, as she found the butt longer than the G26, and the butt not the slide is the hard part for her to conceal.

[md8232]

The LC9s provides plenty of exercise when I try to find my brass. I shot it and a Gen 2 G19 yesterday. The G19 brass was in a fairly neat pile, but the LC9s sent some empties into
the next county.

[SamAdams]

I wish they were still making the Security and Speed Sixes

+ 1 - - - - - - I've got a 6" stainless Security Six and a buddy has a blued snubby Speed Six. Wonderful 357 revolvers.


I don't know much about 9mm pistols. Has Doc posted anything on how short a barrel they can go with as far a terminal ballistics goes ? I see this Ruger has a 3.12 in barrel.

[av8usn]

I have been back and forth on the Ruger LC9 for over a year, but just could not warm up to the trigger. The LC9S has remedied that in spades (pardon me Obama.) The trigger is, to quote a professional reviewer, "butter smooth" and comes in at 5# or LESS! The fit and finish is excellent, and the smooth profile is ideal for EDC. It sports three dot sights that were "right on" from the factory. I found nothing "flimsy" about the LC9S and believe it will stand up to EDC, unless you want to use it as a hammer. My ONLY beef is that it comes with only one magazine, "Hello Ruger!"

I had the first shooting experience with my Ruger LC9S Tuesday. 65+ rounds from 7-15 yards, with the majority from 10 yards. I shot using strong, support hands, and freestyle. Ammunition was a mix of reloads, factory and some "range pickups." 115 and 124 grain mostly, round nose, various moly-coated and hollow point bullets. It ate it all and was 100% reliable out of the box.

The LC9S was flawless and it is one of the most accurate and shoot-able pistols I have owned. I am comparing it to the S&W Shield 9 and 40, Makarov/CZ 83, G26, G36, SA XDS .45 and M&P 9c. It is as accurate, or more so and "pointable," as the G26 and Makarov, and just feels good in my hands. Recoil was quite manageable and, to me, much more so than the Shield 9. I still have a Shield 40 but that would be comparing apples and grapefruit. In short, I am VERY pleased and impressed with the Ruger!

[Clay]

Thanks for the review.

Sent from my SCH-S738C using Tapatalk