LC9s pro fail
- Thread starter stagpanther
- Start date
The second version of the LC9s guide rod assembly has the conical section and the cone spins. There appears to be an newer version of the guide rod assembly where the cone does not spin and, at the other end, the retaining plate is recessed into the base.
Pretty sure if you call Ruger customer service and tell them what happened they will send you the latest version.
Pretty sure if you call Ruger customer service and tell them what happened they will send you the latest version.
stagpanther
New member
Thanks for that--mine is indeed a "cone-spinner" Are you saying the other end is more robustly seated or machined into the rod?
stagpanther
New member
Just got off the phone with Ruger--and they were very professional and service oriented (as usual). They are sending me out not only a replacement rod immediately but also want to expedite the return of my assembly to get it into the hands of their engineers as quickly as possible. My manufacture date is Feb 24/2015 BTW.
stagpanther
New member
will do.
stagpanther
New member
Incidentally, forgot to mention that the person I talked to seemed to be genuinely concerned about seeing to it that I was satisfied as quickly as possible--I suggested that they could make amends and all would be forgiven if they introduced a lever gun in 41 mag. : )
Thanks for that info, ts100. I have an LC9s test fired at the factory 2/11/2015 that has the cone that doesn't spin while my LC9s Pro test fired 11/17/2014 has the cone that spins. I never noticed that before! So far no problems but I'll sure keep an eye on it. I need to break down both Rugers and compare the other end of the guide rods.
Quentin2, that would be great. I'm wondering if the spin or no spin is significant or just some variation in manufacturing. Since the break happened at the base maybe more significant is the retaining plate being recessed into the base, like the one on the right in this photo:
http://i1379.photobucket.com/albums/ah147/pjpb49/LC9s_guide_rod_assembly_base_zpsrtrseb2t.jpg
I just noticed in the middle picture that the newer RSA on the right has a slightly thinner large spring with 21 coils instead of 20 on the left. It also seems better made, not so ragged looking at the top. Of course not the problem, just a difference.
It will be interesting what Ruger sends to stagpanther.
It will be interesting what Ruger sends to stagpanther.
stagpanther
New member
It still looks to me like an inherently flawed design either way; here's why:
The conical end of the inner sleeved rod that fits into the slide end--that's OK because the stress/impact forces on it will be basically straight into it. The plate at the other end is simply peened to the end of the rod. Where that plate slots onto the barrel lug will transmit leveraging forces on that plate when the center of the plate is not in contact with the lug. The area on the end of the rod that is peened to retain the plate is very small. IMHO that is a critical stress area and that plate needs to either be machined into the guide rod (which then creates issues for a 2 piece design) or perhaps make a thicker, thread-on plate.
The conical end of the inner sleeved rod that fits into the slide end--that's OK because the stress/impact forces on it will be basically straight into it. The plate at the other end is simply peened to the end of the rod. Where that plate slots onto the barrel lug will transmit leveraging forces on that plate when the center of the plate is not in contact with the lug. The area on the end of the rod that is peened to retain the plate is very small. IMHO that is a critical stress area and that plate needs to either be machined into the guide rod (which then creates issues for a 2 piece design) or perhaps make a thicker, thread-on plate.
stagpanther
New member
May still go that route--but I have to see the new rod first. I'm sure Ruger thoroughly tested the design--but that might still not necessarily simulate what happens in the wild. The Galloway design--as far as I can tell--is a one spring design--so I'm guessing that changes the dynamics of the action; which is probably why (again guessing) that they require the change of the striker spring as well (no big deal). I'm curious if anyone who has done this mod has any thoughts about the function of the gun--any changes in felt recoil--feed issues etc. My guess is an automatic invalidation of warranty once you go that route--again no big deal to since I modify and use reload ammo on all my weapons. : )
I've read feedback from others and had one range session with a gen2 Galloway kit.
It is a very solid guide rod. I can't imagine it every breaking.
The slide dynamic does change some. Some liked it, others didn't. I noticed that when the striker is set, the slide moved out of battery with less force for some short distance.
Then because of the lighter striker spring, some reported ignition problems with hard primers in some bulk ammo. I had no problems with the ammo that I used, but did not try bulk ammo. In Galloway's description of the product, "quality ammo" is recommended.
I've been following this issue and am currently running with the latest Ruger part, but have kept the Galloway kit as a Plan B.
It is a very solid guide rod. I can't imagine it every breaking.
The slide dynamic does change some. Some liked it, others didn't. I noticed that when the striker is set, the slide moved out of battery with less force for some short distance.
Then because of the lighter striker spring, some reported ignition problems with hard primers in some bulk ammo. I had no problems with the ammo that I used, but did not try bulk ammo. In Galloway's description of the product, "quality ammo" is recommended.
I've been following this issue and am currently running with the latest Ruger part, but have kept the Galloway kit as a Plan B.
Stagpather, your drawing clearly illustrates a worrisome stress point. I've wondered about that very issue in other pistols over the years but never had a failure so put it in the back of my mind.
However you've experienced a true failure at the exact spot in the LC9S Pro so I hope Ruger resolves this guide rod issue properly. No doubt this will affect others, as round count goes up. I'll certainly watch your thread and see where it leads. Thanks for posting! (And of course ts100 as well.)
The earlier LC9 has been sold in volume for years so you'd think problems would have been ironed out by the time the striker fired versions were released. (I'm assuming the LC9 and LC9S RSAs are similar.)
However you've experienced a true failure at the exact spot in the LC9S Pro so I hope Ruger resolves this guide rod issue properly. No doubt this will affect others, as round count goes up. I'll certainly watch your thread and see where it leads. Thanks for posting! (And of course ts100 as well.)
The earlier LC9 has been sold in volume for years so you'd think problems would have been ironed out by the time the striker fired versions were released. (I'm assuming the LC9 and LC9S RSAs are similar.)
stagpanther
New member
I not sure why (born under a bad sign?) but I have always had stunning bad luck with my gun purchases--I'd say easily 50% of em usually have something wrong with them! lol I've taken a philosophical point of view that it's an opportunity to learn how the gun was built and operates.