# SR9 Compact or a LCP 9mm???



## AZ Outlaws

I'm looking to get a small CCW pistol similar in size to a Kel-Tec PF9 or a Kahr PM9, but I'd like to stay 
with Ruger. I was wondering if anyone has read or heard anything about a SR9 Compact or a LCP 9 in 
Ruger's future line-up?

Thanks....


----------



## Baldy

I would say about next year sometime. They are going to sell a bunch of the .380's frist then come out with the 9mm. JMHO.


----------



## forestranger

ditto, Baldy:smt023


----------



## Mike Barham

I am sure Ruger will let us know when they are going to copy the KelTec PF9 or Kahr PM9. :mrgreen:

The LCP would never stand up to 9mm, since it's basically the same as the P3AT.


----------



## forestranger

Mike, you right. Pf9 does have similar action to p3at as opposed to the p11 but a ruger 9 would have to be on larger frame than lcp. Probably cheaper to copy pf9 than kahr?


----------



## AZ Outlaws

Mike Barham said:


> I am sure Ruger will let us know when they are going to copy the KelTec PF9 or Kahr PM9. :mrgreen:
> 
> The LCP would never stand up to 9mm, since it's basically the same as the P3AT.


I'm sure they will. I was only asking if anyone has heard or read anything on the subject. Also, they may 
have copied the design, but from what I've seen, they also improved on it. We'll see when it starts showing 
up at the range.

Yes, you are correct, the current LCP frame will not support a 9mm, that's a given. I didn't mean to suggest 
a LCP 9 mm would be built on the same frame as the LCP .380. A slightly larger frame and some tinkering 
would be needed to produce a LCP in 9mm. A second option would be a SR9 compact....


----------



## Mike Barham

AZ Outlaws said:


> I didn't mean to suggest
> a LCP 9 mm would be built on the same frame as the LCP .380. A slightly larger frame and some tinkering
> would be needed to produce a LCP in 9mm. A second option would be a SR9 compact....


I guess if you're totally stuck on Rugers for some reason, you should wait around for their next copy of someone else's good design. You're right, though, they will likely copy something less expensive and refined than the PM9. Is there something especially distinguishing about centerfire Ruger pistols that makes you want one? I've always found them reliable, but just sort of average and ho-hum in every other way.

If you need a compact 9mm _now_, however, it's the PF9, the PM9 or the Rohrbaugh R9. The only one of these that might _possibly_ make me trade up from my P3AT is the PF9. I will probably get one to test when I get home. I just can't see paying $600+ (never mind $1100!) for a gun I'll only carry occasionally, and the P3AT works fine as a pocket/exercise gun.


----------



## AZ Outlaws

Mike Barham said:


> I guess if you're totally stuck on Rugers for some reason, you should wait around for their next copy of someone else's good design. You're right, though, they will likely copy something less expensive and refined than the PM9. Is there something especially distinguishing about centerfire Ruger pistols that makes you want one? I've always found them reliable, but just sort of average and ho-hum in every other way.
> 
> If you need a compact 9mm _now_, however, it's the PF9, the PM9 or the Rohrbaugh R9. The only one of these that might _possibly_ make me trade up from my P3AT is the PF9. I will probably get one to test when I get home. I just can't see paying $600+ (never mind $1100!) for a gun I'll only carry occasionally, and the P3AT works fine as a pocket/exercise gun.


Nope, not totally stuck on Rugers anymore than you are on Kel-Tec and 9mm's, probably much less so. But you are right, as a general rule, Ruger's are usually reliable and from the current offerings from Karh and Kel-Tec, better looking... which I know is not a selling point for you.

The Kel-Tec design is no longer patent protected and there is nothing wrong with Ruger making an improved and better looking version as has been done with 1911's.

I have nothing against the Kel-Tec itself other than I think it is a cheap looking ugly pistol. As with anything else... if I can afford it and all things being equal, I'll buy what looks better to me, guns included, even if they are rated the same in all other areas.

As for your suggestion, I agree with you. If you read my post in the CCW forum, the PM9 and PF9 are at the top of my short list of pocket pistols for CCW carry, followed by the Taurus PT111 Pro (9mm) and at the bottom of the list is the Ruger LCP because of caliber size.

I haven't purchasd the PM9 or the PF9 yet, because Caswells does not have any as range guns and I have yet to fire either one. I hear they both have a pretty good kick and one is a tad painful to shoot for any length of time. Since my wife will also be shooting whatever small gun I pick, is the reason why the little .380 is on my short list.

Thanks for your opinions and inputs.... :smt1099


----------



## Mike Barham

Well, when I get back and pick up the PF9, we can meet at Caswells for some reliability testing! :mrgreen:

It's fine that Ruger copied the P3AT, I just don't see a reason to get excited about it, since the design has been out for a few years now.


----------



## 69Roadrunner

Just bought a PF-9 and hoping to take it out Saturday, weather permitting. I really gave some thought to either the new Ruger LCP or the P3-AT, but decided that I didn't want to add another set of dies to reload the .380. I have several thousand empty 9mm cases and over 1500 loaded 9mm rounds sitting in my workshop. I like the little finger extension that the pistol comes with and I don't think the extension is so obtrusive as to interfere with concealment. I'm thinking this may become my primary CCW carry because it is so light and concealable - The pistol is light, thin, has a relatively smooth/light double action, and is chambered in 9mm. What more could you ask for for something that only cost me $260 plus tax.


----------



## Blkhawk73

I do know the SR9 is the first of this model series and I've been informed a compact model is very likely.

I just cannot figure ut why this LCP is creating such an uproar and is such a bother to so many simply becuase of it's similarities to the KelTec. "It's a copy; It's a clone" is all ppl are saying about it and usually not in a favorable manner. guess these same folks forget about the unteen differnt manufacturers of thier beloved 1911's and AR's. How many CZ clones are there? How 'bout the Hi-powers copies? 870's? Colt SAA's? Nobody ever has any issues at all when those ae copied yet when Ruger introduces a .380 that is similar to a KelTec is a whole different issue. I'm thinking if Ruger brouhgt out a 1911, ppl would be all for it. 
Aint hypocricy great? :smt023

:watching:



Mike Barham said:


> I guess if you're totally stuck on Rugers for some reason, you should wait around for their next copy of someone else's good design. You're right, though, they will likely copy something less expensive and refined than the PM9. Is there something especially distinguishing about centerfire Ruger pistols that makes you want one? I've always found them reliable, but just sort of average and ho-hum in every other way.


 Sure seems apparant that someone else is pretty stuck on KelTec and Kahr. Not bad, but seemingly bashing one brand in lieu of another which has "copied" it seems a bit wrong and then to claim one is stuck on brand "A" when you yourself is stuck on brands "B" and "C"... 
Can't say the beloved KelTecs are very exciting as compard to the "ho-hum" Rugers. Neither are the Kahrs to me. 
Thought...if the Ruger is "ho-hum" and they supposedly cloned the KelTec, wouldn't the KelTec be ho-hum as well? 

Seems like someone is just anti-Ruger.


----------



## hideit

*small 9mm*



AZ Outlaws said:


> I'm looking to get a small CCW pistol similar in size to a Kel-Tec PF9 or a Kahr PM9, but I'd like to stay
> with Ruger. I was wondering if anyone has read or heard anything about a SR9 Compact or a LCP 9 in
> Ruger's future line-up?
> 
> Thanks....


i read that taurus showed at the shot show a new
9mm SLIM - same size as the pf9


----------



## Mike Barham

I'm not against Ruger pistols. I accept that they are generally reliable. I just don't see anything special about them, and having copies of other company's pistols hardly sets them apart from the herd. 

The P3AT was exciting (or as exciting as a piece of metal and plastic can be) when it was new because it was small and light and really flat and inexpensive. The LCP is all those things, too, but it's a copy and not a new design. Most things aren't very exciting the second time around. It puzzles me that anyone is excited about the LCP, since the basic design has been available for years now. Anyone who wanted one could have had one long before Ruger deigned to produce a pistol for concealed carry. 

John Farnam says the trigger is somewhat improved over the P3AT, which if true may be a good thing, though Ruger's history with triggers doesn't make me exactly hopeful.

I don't find AR copies exciting at all, and it has been ages since I got excited about a 1911 of any kind.

It is true that I resent Ruger's generally condescending attitude toward shooters who are oriented more toward defense than sport.

I'd like to look at the Taurus, though I have not liked any Taurus pistol except their Beretta 92 copies.


----------



## AZ Outlaws

hideit said:


> i read that taurus showed at the shot show a new
> 9mm SLIM - same size as the pf9


Thanks for the heads up on the new Taurus Slim 709, I was unaware of it. There is nothing on their web site about it yet. From what I've been able to find out online, it is due out later this year (they didn't say exactly when). It looks to be a well crafted and a good looking pistol, but a tad heavier at 19oz than the PF9 (12.7oz) or the PM9 (14oz).

I think for now, I'm going to get the Ruger LCP as soon as I can find one and hope they come out with a LCP9 or a SR9 compact which I will get if and when they do come out.

Here are a couple of pictures of the Taurus Slim 709 I found....


----------



## Mike Barham

Heh, I looked at the Taurus website. They call the 709 "slim" but don't actually list the width. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


----------



## AZ Outlaws

Mike Barham said:


> Heh, I looked at the Taurus website. They call the 709 "slim" but don't actually list the width. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?


Can you post a link for the 709 on the Taurus website? I can't find anything....


----------



## Mike Barham

http://www.taurususa.com/products/product-details.cfm?id=588&category=Pistol


----------



## Blkhawk73

Don't even see this new Taurus in thier 2008 catalog. Hmmmmm:smt017 Been seen many times though that the catalogs go to print before the model is to be expected to be ready and even after showing at SHOT the new model isnt always production ready. Never been a huge fan of Taurus especially the newer stuff and with so many issues with them I hear about, I'd not want such a product for any potential defensive purposes. Not even from a compnay that copies other's designs - (PT92, Gaucho, Lightning, 1911)  
If small and thin were my neccessities, I'd look at Rohrbar (sp?)and that like first. More money yes but you get better quality in that money well spent.


----------



## Mike Barham

The Rohrbaugh R9 is a very nice pistol made by very knowledgeable people, but at over $1100 MSRP, I think I'll keep looking at the KelTec PF9. It's admittedly a little larger, but weight is comparable. I can get that spiffy belt clip for the PF9, and the difference in price (about $800) will buy me about 5000 rounds of practice ammo.

The R9 would make a nice companion piece to an HKP7 or a SIG P210, though. :mrgreen:


----------



## Blkhawk73

Mike Barham said:


> The Rohrbaugh R9 is a very nice pistol made by very knowledgeable people, but at over $1100 MSRP, I think I'll keep looking at the KelTec PF9. It's admittedly a little larger, but weight is comparable. I can get that spiffy belt clip for the PF9, and the difference in price (about $800) will buy me about 5000 rounds of practice ammo.
> 
> The R9 would make a nice companion piece to an HKP7 or a SIG P210, though. :mrgreen:


 Quality isn't cheap. I do agree with the P7 models though. Love both of mine. I've been verrrry tempted by the P210 more than once but other impulse buys got in the way. As quickly as thier appreciating in value now, they're about out of my price range now.


----------



## Mike Barham

If it weren't for the prospect of paying $50 each for magazines, and the dearth of Galco holsters, I'd seriously consider a P7 for carry.

I agree that quality isn't cheap, but for a difference of $800/5000 rounds, I'll take the plastic gun that's 3/8" longer. :mrgreen: That's assuming the PF9 is reliable, but I see that a dealer in Phoenix is selling them NIB for a lousy $265. For that price, I'll take chance and give it a try.


----------



## Blkhawk73

Mike Barham said:


> If it weren't for the prospect of paying $50 each for magazines, and the dearth of Galco holsters, I'd seriously consider a P7 for carry.


 Got plenty of mags and the way I see it, if you can afford the gun, the price of mags shouldn't be an issue. Kinda like buying a fancy car and whining about cost of high-octance fuel. Also, regarding holsters, I have no issues getting properly fit ones for my P7's. DelFatti or Mitch Rosen take very good care of things in that dept for me. Again, quality counts even though it costs a bit more.


----------



## Mike Barham

I would be summarily shot if I showed up at work with a non-Galco holster. :mrgreen:

I like to have lots of mags. I'd end up spending the price of the gun again in magazines at $50 a pop. Nice gun...but not *that* nice.


----------



## Mike Barham

Mike Barham said:


> John Farnam says the trigger is somewhat improved over the P3AT, which if true may be a good thing, though Ruger's history with triggers doesn't make me exactly hopeful.


Kinda weird to quote myself, but what the heck. I examined a Ruger LCP at Galco yesterday. The trigger action was _indistinguishable_ from the one on my P3AT.

I grant that it is aesthetically more appealing than the P3AT, but I do not give a damn about aesthetics on a gun I carry in my pocket.


----------



## Blkhawk73

Mike Barham said:


> I am sure Ruger will let us know when they are going to copy the KelTec PF9 or Kahr PM9. :mrgreen:
> 
> The LCP would never stand up to 9mm, since it's basically the same as the P3AT.


:smt120 Nah they're too busy getting ready to copy a 1911 or something. Oh no wait, that's already been done by dozens of companies but little ole me forgot nobody whines about that. :mrgreen:

Regarding a LCP9 or SR9C...I doubt it for the LCP9 but do have on pretty good authority there's plans for a compact model of the SR9.


----------



## Mike Barham

Blkhawk73 said:


> Oh no wait, that's already been done by dozens of companies but little ole me forgot nobody whines about that. :mrgreen:


Not whining, just wondering why people are excited about a straight-up copy of an existing design.

But then again, I didn't get excited in 1985 when Springfield brought in their first Imbel 1911A1s to compete with the Colt Government Model. And look what happened there! :mrgreen:


----------



## 45ACP-Reedie

Alright, I have a question for everyone: I've heard people say that the LCP platform could obviously never handle the 9mm round. I disagree, but I'm not sure I fully understand the issue. Here's what I've learned:

The difference in length between 9mm and .380 is 1.8mm. In the overall length of the 2.75" barrel, I think this is negligible (same goes for the extra grip length that would be needed for 9x19 rounds instead of 9x17 rounds).

The difference in width at the base of the brass (because 9mm is tapered) is 0.43mm. In the overall width of the gun (0.82" = 20.82mm), this seems to be negligible.

The maximum chamber pressure rated by SAAMI for .380 is 21,500psi, whereas 9mm is rated at about 35,000psi. This is a significant difference, and results in a bullet with about 40% more kinetic energy out of the 9mm. Let's explore this, too:

It seems to me that dealing with more kinetic energy being imparted to the slide is just a matter of having stiffer springs, and a shooter who's willing to take the punishment of that energy on the tiny LCP grip. Fine - seems doable.

I also figured that maybe the chamber would need to be thicker to hold the pressure. However, the 9mm Kel Tec PF9 is only 0.88" wide - only 0.03" wider on each side of the chamber (if the extra width is in the chamber) than the LCP. This suggests that a 9mm can be made just as slim as the LCP.

So, can anyone tell me why the LCP couldn't be made in 9mm? It's not very obvious to me.


----------



## dondavis3

+1 Blkhawk73 

I got the feeling - just bashing for bashings sake.

Not real helpful or constructive either.

:smt1099


----------

