A new Ruger.

[billt460]

The only Ruger centerfire semi auto I've ever, "kinda, sorta" liked was the P-90. I find most of them look cheap, and go overboard with Aluminum and plastic, and have too many sharp edges. I will say they are reliable for the price. Then again, so is a Hi Point. With so many other nicer semi's out there, I just can't see getting involved with them. Especially LCP 380. It looks like something you would give to your 8 year old son to play with. And I won't even get into that abortion of a plastic revolver, that looks like something the designers came up with, after attending the company Christmas party O.D.'d on pain killers.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Originally Posted By: Doog

Plus my 2nd amendment attorney recommended having a carry weapon with a safety.


Could you explain why? To prevent unintentional discharge? Good thought, but, if it's possible to pull the trigger when you don't intend to under extreme stress is it also possible to forget to release a manual safety when you really need to fire?


Yes, he said if you have a semi auto pistol with a safety on most pistols actually engaging the safety is optional for the user. But if you ever end up in court after using it you are less likely to be prosecuted for negligent assault/homicide because you have a "safe" firearm. His opinion is based on cases in front of juries who know virtually zero about firearms but make decisions about your liberty for the rest of your life.

His argument is: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury......my client carries one of the safest firearms on the market...this pistol has 4 built in safety systems that prevent even the most untrained and novice user from accidentally shooting someone" "Therefore the notion that my client accidentally and negligently shot the victim and was NOT protecting himself is really a fabrication"

Don't forget...that prosecutor in what ever town you might find yourself under attack might be an anti-gunner and will try to convince a judge and jury that you don't know what you are doing...you are some kind of cowboy tea party right wing gun nut who accidentally and negligently killed their plaintiff. The media will be all over it. The perps 90 year old Grandmother will be there crying.....you know the story.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: billt460
Lawyers need to stick to giving legal advise. Not firearms advise.


Until you find yourself being charged with negligent homicide for defending yourself. Then you will wish you had a really good one. I don't discount the fact that 40% of out population is anti-gunners. The chance you'll get one on a jury is 40%.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: Tom NJ
I'd like to think that, with practice, I can ingrain manual safety release to an involuntary muscle reaction. But then I have never been in an up-close deadly confrontation and I just cannot predict how I would react in such an intensely emotional panic. The safer route, in my opinion, is to carry a gun that goes bang when you pull the trigger, period, without having to remember to do something else first.

There are lots of conflicting opinions on this subject, and to each his own; I just feel my odds are better in a panic with a DAO trigger and no manual safety. Couldn't care less how tight my groups are at 25 yards with a CCW, when it comes to self defense just go bang when I tell you to, and carry enough rounds to get me through.

Tom NJ


If that is the case just leave the safety in the off position. If you are unable to remember that should you really be carrying a semi-auto pistol? My attorney recommends Sig Sauer with thier 4 point safety system and is against Glocks due to all of the accidental discharges from Glocks.

There are tons of articles and internet fodder on police officers having ADs with glocks. You can bet you'll be seeing that presented against you if you carry one.

If you don't believe it....just think "Ralph Nader & Corvair" or "Ralph Nader & Ford Pinto"

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: Doog
My attorney recommends Sig Sauer with thier 4 point safety system and is against Glocks due to all of the accidental discharges from Glocks.

There are tons of articles and internet fodder on police officers having ADs with glocks.

Not to sound smug. But as a pistol instructor, I personally feel that the majority of people that carry don't have the necessary knowledge, skills, or attitude to do so.

Having an AD with a Glock proves that. The only time I use the safety on my LC9s, or 9mm Shield is to test it after reassembly. I never have a round in my pistol when I am not actively carrying or shooting it.

The closest I ever have to a loaded firearm in my house is the one in my nightstand that has a loaded mag. besides it. Right or wrong..that's just me.

 

[billt460]

It's getting a little deep here. Can anyone cite a case in a self defense shooting, where the shooter went to jail as a direct result of using a gun that.... "wasn't safe enough"?

 

[billt460]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: billt460
Lawyers need to stick to giving legal advise. Not firearms advise.


Until you find yourself being charged with negligent homicide for defending yourself. Then you will wish you had a really good one. I don't discount the fact that 40% of out population is anti-gunners. The chance you'll get one on a jury is 40%.


In that case I'll want his legal advise. Not listen to him carry on about what kind of gun he thinks, "I should have bought". A shoot is either clean, or it isn't. A gun isn't going to determine that factor. The person using it is.

 

[totegoat]

While my P91DC isn't pretty, it is safe and ready, I don't carry it due to its size.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: billt460
It's getting a little deep here. Can anyone cite a case in a self defense shooting, where the shooter went to jail as a direct result of using a gun that.... "wasn't safe enough"?

Exactly
And this:
Originally Posted By: billt460
A shoot is either clean, or it isn't. A gun isn't going to determine that factor. The person using it is.

Maybe that if you are trying to defend y our life and are able to,.. the prosecutor can convince the jury that if you had the safety engaged and the perp kills you...he (the perp) would still be alive

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: billt460
It's getting a little deep here. Can anyone cite a case in a self defense shooting, where the shooter went to jail as a direct result of using a gun that.... "wasn't safe enough"?


You are in Arizona...I am in Cleveland ,Ohio....the Cleveland Police Department has had numerous cases where they have been charged with and sued over accidental discharges and questionable shootings. They are now under Federal Mandate from Eric Holder to revamp the entire department. So the County prosecutor is really an anti gunner and many of the Judges are anti as well. There is a gang related shooting here every week. Sometimes more often. So, the mindset here is very bad for people with CHLs. In fact I am moving out of here in a year because it is so negative. The City of Cleveland and numerous suburbs have tried passing their own gun control laws and are continually doing so. It's bad.

My attorney is a combat Vet and an NRA instructor. So he handles cases all the time.

 

[Doog]

Originally Posted By: billt460

A shoot is either clean, or it isn't. A gun isn't going to determine that factor. The person using it is.


Not always.....especially here. The prosecutor here decides. And they are not pro second amendment.

 

[blupupher]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Originally Posted By: billt460

A shoot is either clean, or it isn't. A gun isn't going to determine that factor. The person using it is.


Not always.....especially here. The prosecutor here decides. And they are not pro second amendment.

Yup. Unfortunately, it if goes to trial, the truth does not matter. What matters is what the lawyers get the jury to believe.

Luckily I am in Texas, a very friendly gun state.
I am debating between a SR9c and the LC9s.

 

[Al]

Speaking of the LC9...Just sent back the slide on my LC9s bc the front slide moved about 1/16 inch. Its a very very common problem on the LC9.

The lady told me they drill and tap it in place. Sent it in Sat. She assured me they would j send it back very quickly.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: 901Memphis
I almost got one the other day but decided on the M&P Shield 9 mm instead. It was only $399 at Budsgunshop and came with two mags
The Ruger lc9s pro was my second choice but it didn't feel as good in my hand.

Well, one thing. My LC9s had 3 failure to eject in about 150 rounds. I really expect that will disappear after a couple hundred rounds.

My Glock 43, and My Shield have had no issues thus far.

 

[KCJeep]

Some weapons are more ammo picky than others too. My Kahr will run like a sewing machine on most, but a couple brands are problem city.

 

[stchman]

I've always been fascinated by people wanting a "great" trigger on a CCW gun.

I get it that a better trigger does have an impact on accuracy, but in the LC9 type guns, they are going to be close range where shooting pinpoint accuracy isn't that crucial. I heavy trigger is on these guns by default.

My LCP is my CCW piece, it has a REALLY heavy trigger and is a real handful to shoot, but so what. I don't enjoy shooting my LCP. I'm not going to be taking it to the range all the time for some fun shooting.

Now where the LC9s Pro does excel is the following:

No manual safety
No magazine disconnect

IMO, these are FAR more important than having a buttery smooth trigger.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: stchman

Now where the LC9s Pro does excel is the following:
No manual safety
No magazine disconnect
IMO, these are FAR more important than having a buttery smooth trigger.

I don't have the Pro bc the non-pro was available. But (for me) there is no down side in having the safety or the disconnect. The odds of a magazine popping out are small and I keep the safety off. My shield fires without the mag and has a safety, my G43 has no safety and fires without the mag. Its the one I carry just bc it feels better.

 

[another Todd]

Originally Posted By: AZjeff
Originally Posted By: Doog

Plus my 2nd amendment attorney recommended having a carry weapon with a safety.


Could you explain why? To prevent unintentional discharge? Good thought, but, if it's possible to pull the trigger when you don't intend to under extreme stress is it also possible to forget to release a manual safety when you really need to fire?


I too will only buy semi-autos with safeties. It is automatic when raising the gun to fire, that the thumb releases the safety on the way up. It's just become automatic so I don't see it as an issue.

 

[CELICA_XX]

Originally Posted By: Doog
Yes, he said if you have a semi auto pistol with a safety on most pistols actually engaging the safety is optional for the user. But if you ever end up in court after using it you are less likely to be prosecuted for negligent assault/homicide because you have a "safe" firearm. His opinion is based on cases in front of juries who know virtually zero about firearms but make decisions about your liberty for the rest of your life.

His argument is: "Ladies and Gentlemen of the jury......my client carries one of the safest firearms on the market...this pistol has 4 built in safety systems that prevent even the most untrained and novice user from accidentally shooting someone" "Therefore the notion that my client accidentally and negligently shot the victim and was NOT protecting himself is really a fabrication"

Don't forget...that prosecutor in what ever town you might find yourself under attack might be an anti-gunner and will try to convince a judge and jury that you don't know what you are doing...you are some kind of cowboy tea party right wing gun nut who accidentally and negligently killed their plaintiff. The media will be all over it. The perps 90 year old Grandmother will be there crying.....you know the story.


I think this is total bull, and I don't know how more people aren't speaking up.

The likelihood of being prosecuted for negligent assault/homicide rides on your individual judgment of the situation at hand, and whether or not you choose to discharge your firearm.

Not whether you own an LC9s or LC9s Pro.

 

[Al]

Originally Posted By: CELICA_XX

I think this is total bull, and I don't know how more people aren't speaking up.

The likelihood of being prosecuted for negligent assault/homicide rides on your individual judgment of the situation at hand, and whether or not you choose to discharge your firearm.

Not whether you own an LC9s or LC9s Pro.

Yep..remember these words: "Were you (through no fault of your own) in immediate danger of serious bodily injury?"

That is all that matters.