Ruger LCP-II "single action" concerns

O

OhioGuy

New member
I know there's been a thread here already that discussed, in some detail, the new LCP-II's lack of internal "drop safety" mechanism.

I noticed online that one pocket holster maker has posted an open letter to Sturm-Ruger stating that he doesn't feel the gun is safe enough for pocket carry, and will not be making a holster for it unless/until the issue is addressed.

As best I understand it, when this gun is chambered, the trigger is fully cocked and the gun is in single-action condition. Some compare this to carrying a 1911 in a "cocked and UN-locked" condition, which is known to be unsafe.

I haven't fired this gun yet (no ranges are renting them near me) but I've tried the trigger in a gun store, and it feels fairly comparable to a Glock.

My question is, is carrying an LCP-II with a round chambered really any different from carrying any of the myriad striker pistols that have similar short-travel "blade-safety" triggers? I could carry a Glock, M&P, Ruger American, etc. and so forth with a round chambered, no external safety, and nothing preventing the gun from firing other than keeping my fat finger off that trigger.

Somehow "cocked hammer" sounds scarier than "pre-tensioned striker" :)

I'm not intending to start a discussion about "Glock-leg" or whether similar guns are safe to carry in general. I think all will agree that these guns are safe to carry so long as there is no user error when drawing or re-holstering.

My odds of pocket carrying are probably quite low...I'd be more likely to carry either AIWB in a tucked-in Kydex holster, or possibly in a belly band or SmartCarry style pouch holster. None of which seems as prone to potentially fumbling and accidently hitting a trigger on the draw.

My questions are:
1. Is carrying a chambered LCP-II any different from carrying any other blade-safety gun that lacks an external safety?

2. Does the lack of internal drop safety mean this gun will fire if dropped on the ground, whereas the striker guns will not? And if that's a concern, how hard does this gun need to be jolted to make that hammer fall?
 
1. Yes, most of the pistols you mentioned have firing pin blocks. The Ruger LCP does not. Even a cocked and unlocked 1911 still has a grip safety, a half cock notch, and in a Series 80, a firing pin safety.

2. All firearms, even those with firing pin blocks and other safeties can discharge if dropped hard enough under the right conditions. I have no idea what the conditions are for the LCP-II. Is it on the California-approved list? If so, we know it passed the drop test associated with that approval. I can't imagine an absence of safeties making it more drop safe though.
 
Technically the LCP II hammer is not fully cocked - the hammer does move down another 1/10" on trigger pull. This created a jump in trigger pressure to about 6+ lbs before discharge. Not saying this makes the gun safer, just saying. Also the LCP II comes with a good quality pocket holster.

I always thought I would never carry a chambered SA gun without a safety, but I do pocket carry my LCP II with confidence (or ignorance:)) The holster does cover the trigger well, and I keep my trigger finger outside the holster upon drawing. The chances of a careless panic draw is very unlikely, and overall I feel carrying an un-chambered gun or one that requires releasing a safety may be more unsafe in a panic draw as you must remember to do so. Since all of my guns are intended for self defense, I prefer they be in "pull-bang" condition.

Can't speak to drop safety, but the LCP II does have an inertia type firing pin, and is so light it would probably have to hit a solid surface dead on the muzzle from a fairly high height to discharge.

I certainly would have preferred to have a DA/SA small pocket handgun with no safety, but couldn't find one meeting my requirements. The big advantage to the LCP II for me is that it is so small and light that I actually carry it more often. Just slip it in my pocket and out the door.

TomNJVA
 
Bartholomew Roberts said:
Is it on the California-approved list?
Click to expand...
I don't know for sure, but I presume it isn't and won't be for the foreseeable future, due to that state's microstamping requirement for new automatic pistol designs.
 
Pretty sure the thread floating around here has a response from Ruger saying that the LCP II is fully cocked when it's racked, unlike the original LCP/LCP custom which were not fully cocked and they were drop safe as well. Bartholomew was dead on about the firing pin blocks in striker fired guns. Granted I have the full apex and forward set sear in my M&P that puts it at what would be a decent SA pull IMO, better than the rental Remington 1911 my range has at least :p. And I don't have any safeties on that except my finger and the blade.
 
TomNJVA said:
Technically the LCP II hammer is not fully cocked - the hammer does move down another 1/10" on trigger pull.
Click to expand...
FWIW the SA pull of many common DA/SA pistols exhibits similar hammer movement, so this fact is not necessarily conclusive.

(This is usually brought up in the perpetual "Are modern striker pistols really DAO?" dead-horse-beating contest debate. :rolleyes:;))
 
Actually, the original LCP underwent a recall specifically to address problems with the pistol discharging when dropped: http://www.ruger.com/LCPRecall/

Ruger stated it was an issue with the hammer mechanism. Still, I would expect Ruger had those issues ironed out as well as they could for that design when the LCP2 came out.

FYI: According to Ruger, the LCP2 is not approved in CA or MA.
 
One options is to get one of those trigger stops by Garrison Grips. Next to impossible to pull the trigger with one in the guard and easily slips out intentionally, too.
 
So based on not being legal in CA, and some other feedback, it seems we can conclude something like the following:

Yes, the LCP-2 has fewer safeties than "Glock-like" striker guns, because it does not have any internal hammer stops or firing pin blocks. It has not passed a CA drop-test.

Therefore it is "less safe" to carry than other guns, but only if dropped? Not an issue otherwise?
 
The fact that it has not been offered in California is not a negative for me. Ruger simply got tired of modifying their products for a state that supported neither the industry nor the public ownership of guns. They no longer comply with California BS.
Given a choice between a Glock and a Ruger I would choose the Ruger every time. I have never heard of anyone afflicted with "Glock leg" with a Ruger. :)
 
ShootistPRS said:
The fact that it has not been offered in California is not a negative for me. Ruger simply got tired of modifying their products for a state that supported neither the industry nor the public ownership of guns. They no longer comply with California BS.
Click to expand...
Perhaps, but I think Bartholomew's and OhioGuy's point is that passing the CA (or MA) drop test offers at least some assurance that the pistol will not discharge if dropped on a hard surface.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top