Ruger LC9s Pro: Enough gun?

Do you think a Ruger LC9s Pro is a good primary CCW?

  • Yes

    Votes: 47 100.0%

  • No

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Total voters
    47
  • Poll closed .
M

Model12Win

Moderator
Hello all!

Well I am about to buy a Ruger LC9s Pro to replace my S&W 642 as my primary CCW carry piece. I have a tiny NAA .22 mini-revolver that will be my backup gun, and I intend to carry one extra magazine, possibly an extended factory magazine if they make those.

I am wondering though, do you think that the Ruger LC9s Pro is "enough gun" for primary CCW? It is a 7+1 capacity gun and fires 9mm ammo. Is this gun more of a pocket or backup style weapon, or is it made to be a primary?

How would you all feel if you had an LC9s Pro as your primary CCW option? Would you feel well enough armed, or would you rather have something with more capacity and power?

I'd love to hear some feedback on this. Thanks guys!
 
I've got one and like it for what it is for me--IMHO it's more akin to an LCP that can fire 9mm (i.e. close quick point and shoot) as opposed to a really stable/robust 9mm that will group well at 20 yds+ (I never have been able to with the LC9s pro--but that might be because I can't see the sights well).
 
I also voted "yes", with the caveat that you can actually handle and shoot it well.

Think of it as a slightly longer barreled snub with a couple extra rounds of ammo capacity, if you wish. Most owners/users would probably also express that loading (same as reloading ;) ) can be faster when using a semiauto, too, at least compared to a revolver.

I've carried my 3" CS9, which is also 7+1 capacity, as a "primary" off-duty weapon, and later as a retirement CCW. I'd not be averse to carrying a small plastic 9mm pistol with 7+1, or even 6+1 capacity (G43) ... presuming I could prove to myself that I could use one safely, controllably, accurately and effectively.

It's not the caliber, it's the ability of the shooter to actually run the small gun well enough for it to serve as a dedicated defensive weapon for the particular owner's anticipated needs.

I'd think you might find it a bit easier to run than the 642 (of which I own a pair, of my more than half a dozen J-frames ;) ).

When I carry a small 9mm pistol, I use one of my smallish models, which include a CS9, 3913, 3913TSW, pair of G26's and a SW999c (think P99 9c AS).

I'd not look at the LC9s as a uniform-type "primary" weapon, but I'd not have any indigestion using a small 9mm of that size (think Shield 9 or G43) as a "primary" personal defense/retirement/off-duty weapon. Not at all.

Unless I couldn't handle, manipulate and shoot it well. If I couldn't, I wouldn't.

Your call, as you know your situation better than the rest of us.

FWIW, if I go over the hill to visit my cigar club later this afternoon, I'll probably not wear one of my many full-size, compact or subcompact 9's, .40's or .45's ... but probably either one of my J-frames, or one of my LCP .380's ... but that's me. ;)
 
7+1 rounds of 9mm would be enough for me if I were able to shoot it well at reasonable defense ranges and it was a size that conformed with my chosen means of carry.

I don't often carry a firearm, but when I do it's the S&W 642. So maybe my "enough" is too little for you already.
 
Heck yeah! I certainly would not feel under-armed at all carrying one. But then, being a realist I am not one of those any caliber that isn't more than 9mm is no good kinds of folks.
 
I got the LC9S specifically for CCW and I love the little thing, 7+1 is as many rounds as my 1911 would hold and I can easily carry an extra mag if I feel the need. for me it shoots very well and I have put about 400-500 rounds through it and it has functioned perfectly with several ammo types
 
I have an LC9 not the s version and I have a 642, I had rather carry rh 642, I usually pocket carry and the 642 is a bit better for the pocket. In a holster it would probably be a toss up. The LC9 only weighs 3 ounces more than the 642.
I shoot them both about the same. The LC9s will be a little easier to shoot than the double action guns.
 
Well pleased with my Ruger LC9s.Just 2 oz. more BUT 2ext. rds.,packs flatter,better trigger,400+ rds.,utterly reliable.A fine CCW. :D
 
For me it's ok most days, but there are days it's too much and times it's not enough for my comfort.

Rural Kansas it's fine, inner city sketchy neighborhood not so much.
 
I carried a PT-145 for a long time but recently bought a Glock 43 which has a 6+1 capacity. I don't feel undergunned or like I should have more fire power than I do. I looked at the Ruger and the S&W but decided on the Glock.
 
Plenty enough gun, for sure! But it's also important to have the right ammo for CCW. I traded up from LC9 to an LC9s for the striker fire ease of shooting alone. I also traded up from the Hornady Critical Defense 9mm to the Hornady Critical Duty. Still 7+1, and I bought an extra magazine for carry. You can also get an extended magazine. The carry size is highly concealable in my pocket holster, and the rounds are just right for stopping an attack!
 
There are plenty of folks carrying 5 shot revolvers as primary weapons, and I wouldn't call them under armed. It really comes down to how well you shoot with it and how fast you can deploy it when needed - in other words, most guns are "enough gun" as long as you spend adequate time practicing with them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top