Does the new LC9 met MA requirements

[mikes45]

http://www.ruger.com/news/2014-07-29a.html

Ruger Introduces the All New, Striker-Fired LC9s Compact 9mm Pistol
July 29, 2014
Sturm, Ruger & Co., Inc. (NYSE: RGR) is proud to announce the introduction of the all new Ruger® LC9s™ pistol. The LC9s™ is a striker-fired version of the award-winning LC9® pistol. Like the LC9®, the LC9s™ is a slim, lightweight, personal protection pistol that is chambered in 9mm Luger. The LC9s™ features a newly designed trigger mechanism with a short, light, crisp trigger pull that improves accuracy and performance.

"The Ruger® LC9® set a high standard for reliable, lightweight personal protection," said Chris Killoy, Ruger President and Chief Operating Officer. "The LC9s™ follows the success of the LC9®, yet provides a new option for shooters who prefer the short, crisp trigger pull of a striker-fired pistol," he added.

The LC9s™ uses the same holsters, extended magazines, lasers and accessories as the rugged and reliable LC9® and features a blued, through-hardened alloy steel slide; a one-piece high-performance, glass-filled nylon grip frame with aggressive checkering; a grip extension magazine floorplate to improve handling; and a rapid acquisition, windage adjustable, 3-dot sight system.

The compact, 17.2 oz. Ruger LC9s™ pistol has a 3.12" barrel, an overall length of 6", a height of 4.5" and a slim 0.9" width. The compact frame and short trigger reach is designed to accommodate a wide range of hand sizes. The LC9s™ offers modern safety features such as an integrated trigger safety, manual safety, magazine disconnect, inert magazine for safe disassembly and a visual inspection port that allows for visual confirmation of a loaded or empty chamber. The LC9s™ ships with one 7-round magazine, a soft case and a cable locking device.

 

[oldguy47]

Call Ruger -website doesn't say.

 

[Len-2A Training]

Impossible. On average it takes a year or two after release of a new product to get MA approved. And MA only publishes the list of approved handguns 4x/year, miss the publication date and you have to wait another 3 months minimum.

That said, it is NOT our problem. If you find it and a gun shop will sell it to you, buy it and KEEP QUIET about it. It is only the gun shop that is on the legal hook for any non-approved gun, not the buyer.

 

[soam]

The website does say - currently the LC9s is not "MA Approved & Certified". As LenS says though, only the dealer is on the hook for that. Of course, most dealers will not sell/transfer a non-compliant pistol, so you'll have to look around a bit harder if you want to get one.

http://www.ruger.com/products/lc9s/specSheets/3235.html

 

[92G]

Between MA available options like the sig 938, shield, walther pps or kahr p9/pm9, i am failing to see why in the world an LC9 would even be desired. To each his own, but that is one ruger product i have no use for.

 

[TBalls]

I would imagine based on Ruger's history (& that pointless manual safety) that there's nothing keeping it from becoming "compliant". Beyond that, what Len said.

 

[mousegunfan]

Between MA available options like the sig 938, shield, walther pps or kahr p9/pm9, i am failing to see why in the world an LC9 would even be desired. To each his own, but that is one ruger product i have no use for.

Maybe because, better trigger ( assuming the same as sr9c) than shield, pm9 and pps. Lighter than the shield and cost less than all the above. Which might make it a good choice.

 

[92G]

Maybe because, better trigger ( assuming the same as sr9c) than shield, pm9 and pps. Lighter than the shield and cost less than all the above. Which might make it a good choice.

the possibility of the LC9 having a better trigger than the shield, PM9 or PPS is quite slim. while all those firearms have a heavy pull, the triggers are excellent. the PM9 particularly is a ridiculously nice trigger.

the shield now can easily be had for $400....so how much cheaper would the LC9s be?
if it's lighter than the shield we are talking like 1.5 oz or something negligible when we consider the shield has a steel guide rod.

the LC9 has a retarded mag disconnect which is not too easy to remove....IMO that is a giant slap in the face to any self-respecting gun owner....the only time i will purchase a firearm w mag disconnect is if I know I can remove it fairly easily and the gun will function without it. also, why does a striker gun need an external thumb safety? makes no sense to me. just my 2c. YMMV.

 

[rocket500]

Impossible. On average it takes a year or two after release of a new product to get MA approved. And MA only publishes the list of approved handguns 4x/year, miss the publication date and you have to wait another 3 months minimum.

That said, it is NOT our problem. If you find it and a gun shop will sell it to you, buy it and KEEP QUIET about it. It is only the gun shop that is on the legal hook for any non-approved gun, not the buyer.

S&W got their new Bodyguard 380 into MA very shortly (ie. weeks or at most months) after release. Maybe they submitted prototypes well in advance but we don't always have to wait a year or two for new models.

 

[drgrant]

the possibility of the LC9 having a better trigger than the shield, PM9 or PPS is quite slim.

No, it's not too big of a leap. The SR9c has a decent trigger in it, my guess is they felt they could get away with it on the CMR940 BS because of the massive amount of gayness introduced by the manual safety and the magazine safety.

The LC9S could be ready to go with just a mag interlock delete, done. The manual safety is still pretty lame, though.

-Mike

 

[drgrant]

S&W got their new Bodyguard 380 into MA very shortly (ie. weeks or at most months) after release. Maybe they submitted prototypes well in advance but we don't always have to wait a year or two for new models.

Just because there are a ton of dealers rug-sweeping these, doesn't mean its actually compliant. (not that this matters to buyers, anyways). There is currently still only one "Bodyguard .380" on the roster. (The one on EOPS site is dated 2-2014. ) Now that having been said, someone could use the substantially similar clause... but the new M&P BG380 is WAY less of a piece of shit than the original is, so it couldn't possibly be substantially similar.

-Mike

 

[Len-2A Training]

Just because there are a ton of dealers rug-sweeping these, doesn't mean its actually compliant. (not that this matters to buyers, anyways). There is currently still only one "Bodyguard .380" on the roster. (The one on EOPS site is dated 2-2014. ) Now that having been said, someone could use the substantially similar clause... but the new M&P BG380 is WAY less of a piece of shit than the original is, so it couldn't possibly be substantially similar.

-Mike

"Substantially similar" required certification by the independent test lab wrt that status and acceptance by GCAB and EOPS then publication on the EOPS List. Nobody is allowed to self-certify "substantially similar" and sell.

 

[mousegunfan]

the possibility of the LC9 having a better trigger than the shield, PM9 or PPS is quite slim. while all those firearms have a heavy pull, the triggers are excellent. the PM9 particularly is a ridiculously nice trigger.

the shield now can easily be had for $400....so how much cheaper would the LC9s be?
if it's lighter than the shield we are talking like 1.5 oz or something negligible when we consider the shield has a steel guide rod.

the LC9 has a retarded mag disconnect which is not too easy to remove....IMO that is a giant slap in the face to any self-respecting gun owner....the only time i will purchase a firearm w mag disconnect is if I know I can remove it fairly easily and the gun will function without it. also, why does a striker gun need an external thumb safety? makes no sense to me. just my 2c. YMMV.

I was referring to MA triggers on those guns. The striker sr series triggers are nice, so I assume this will be also. You have to add a trigger job to the cost of those except the kahr. The pm9 is sweet if you like that style, I do, but many do not like long pulls. Also those 3 ounces less in weight matter, kahr excluded. So no, it should not be dismissed to be crappy like the first lc9.

P.S. Hickok45 did a nice review of it.