Ruger really has a run going here.

Looks like all the talent there died with Bill.

First they clone the Glock with a safety, and then have to recall it!

Then they STEAL the Kel-tec P3AT design and put it out with a Ruger label on it.

Really swift moves there lately, Ruger. Is that Mr. Sanetti that is still steering the company?

Buckshot

Buckshot wrote:

QUOTE:
Ruger really has a run going here.

Looks like all the talent there died with Bill.

First they clone the Glock with a safety, and then have to recall it!

Then they STEAL the Kel-tec P3AT design and put it out with a Ruger label on it.

Really swift moves there lately, Ruger. Is that Mr. Sanetti that is still steering the company?

Buckshot

Lots of guns have recalls, they will fix it and move on. Initial reports I was hearing were generally very positive on the SR9 and a lot of people (not me) would like to have a Glock with a manual thumb safety. I just wonder what took Ruger so long to get to this point, should have been here 10 yrs ago.

The LCP also looks like a real winner. I don't know how they got away with what looks like an upgraded copy of the P3AT, maybe some sort of deal with KT before the release that isn't being talked about. I expect I will buy the first LCP I see that isn't marked up significantly above MSRP.

I like where Ruger is going...keep it up!

Monty

Why not compare apples to apples?

The new Ruger against the Kel-tec P3AT, plus maybe the SKYY .380 and the NAA Guardian .380?

Or even, if you really have to keep the 9 mm P in there, the Kel-tec PF-9?

Buckshot

Buckshot wrote:

QUOTE:
Why not compare apples to apples?

The new Ruger against the Kel-tec P3AT, plus maybe the SKYY .380 and the NAA Guardian .380?

Or even, if you really have to keep the 9 mm P in there, the Kel-tec PF-9?

Buckshot

The P3AT is a virtual twin so it could have gone up against the PM9 same as the LCP, would look about the same. The PF-9 appears to be a good deal larger than the PM9 and the point was to show how close you could get to the LCP and have a 9mm instead of the weaker .380. The PF-9 would be a good deal closer in price though. The real reason was a friend of mine said "Why would you choose the LCP when you could have a proven PM9". So I threw that comparison up there for him.

I get a chance tomorrow maybe I'll add a few more pistols to the comparison.

Monty

I picked up a Ruger LCP about a month ago.

My initial impressions of it are quite favorable so far - I've run several magazines of 10 different .380 ACP loads through it, and all fed just fine. I have about 600 rounds through it so far. (Why do I have 10 different types on-hand, you ask? From trying to get a balky Walther PPK dialed in...)

It's about the same size as a Walther TPH, but lighter, and more powerful. It fits in the pocket just fine, and there are a variety of pocket holsters for it available, either generic "small auto" ones, or custom-made ones. It doesn't need much special, I'm using a DeSantis Nemesis for it, which is just about right for my needs. Most Keltec P3AT holsters should work fine, by some strange coincidence...

The sights are dreadful, bordering upon useless if you attempt to use them in the normal manner. I'm going to put some sort of white paint on the front one, and call it a day, this is not a long-distance weapon. It's really meant for close-in point-shooting work, so I'm not concerned about the sights really.

The trigger is about 8 pounds, has a long revolver-like pull, and initially had some jerky bits during its travel, which cleaned up after a few hundred rounds. The final break is very crisp and clean. The combination of the primitive sights, the size of the weapon, and the trigger make this very much a close-range weapon for me. For comparison, I can print decent groups at 25 yards with the Walter TPH, Walther PPK, or SIG P232, whereas I was getting 6" groups with the LCP. Some part of this is likely an interaction between it being a new gun, the short sight radius, and my new bifocals

It only comes with one magazine, and they don't seem to be really shipping spare magazines yet in any volume. Ruger finally got some up for sale on their web site a few weeks ago, which resolved this issue for me.

By comparison to all the other pocket/mouse guns I experiment with: J-frame, PPK, SIG P232, Walther PPS, Walther TPH, Glock 26 - this one is a quantum level smaller - it hides in your pocket with almost no sign or feeling that it is there. It feels more like having a Spyderco Endura in your pocket than a gun. This is truly a toss-in-your-pocket pistol, and gives you 7 shots of .380 ACP ready to go. The main downside for me compared to the others is that it will not be as useful at longer ranges - the Walther TPH, for instance, I'd be perfectly happy carrying hiking as a kit gun for rabbit/squirrel action, this Ruger is much more limited. It also cannot be fired from within the pocket with nearly as good a result as the J-frame.

The LCP has removed any lingering desire I have to pick up a Seecamp or Rohrbaugh - this is small enough for my deep-concealment desires, costs < $300, and seems very reliable and unfussy so far.

If you need/want something very small and concealable, and can accept a .380 ACP, it's well worth checking this little fellow out.

Thanks bae for posting that update over here for me. I am very interested in adding one of these into my CCW rotation. I expect it will replace my little 642 j-frame for almost all situations where it was getting the nod. The j-frame with have the very CCW friendly grips more than likely swapped out for something a little more shooter friendly and used almost exclusively for jacket pocket carry, something I very seldom do. I do often carry in the front pants pocket and the LCP certainly sounds like it is several magnitudes more concealable, adds a couple rounds, quicker reloads with just a slight downgrade in ballistics.

Time to start nosing around the gunshops

Thanks!

Monty