Ruger's newly released single-stack compact 9mm, the LC9, designed for concealed carry, has gotten a lot of press lately. Just for giggles, I thought it might be interesting to compare it to a Smith that's been around for a while, it's one that has gotten rave reviews ever since it was introduced. I got the specs on the LC9 and thought I'd compare them with the 3913. Here's the comparison.

Action type:
3913 - DA/SA
LC9 - DAO
Advantage: 3913. It has re-strike capability.

Caliber:
3913 - 9mm
LC9 - 9mm
This is a wash. Both use the same cartridge.

Capacity:
3913 - 8+1
LC9 - 7+1
Advantage: 3913. 12.5% more capacity/firepower.

Trigger pull:
3913 (SA) - 8 lbs.
LC9 (DA) - 7 lbs.
Advantage: LC9 by one pound.

Weight empty:
3913 - 24 oz.
LC9 - 17 oz.
Advantage: LC9 by 7 oz.

Weight fully loaded:
3913 - 28 oz.
LC9 - 21 oz.
Advantage: LC9 by 7 oz.

Barrel length:
3913 - 3.5"
LC9 - 3.125"
Advantage: 3913 (higher velocity with same loads)

Overall length:
3913 - 6.8"
LC9 - 6.0"
Advantage: LC9 by .8"

Height:
3913 - 5.3"
LC9 - 4.5"
Advantage: LC9 by .8"

Grip thickness:
3913 - 1.0"
LC9 - 1.0"
This is a wash.

Depth of grip (short mag extension):
3913: 2.0"
LC9: 2.0"
This is a wash.

Depth of grip (long mag extension):
3913 - 2.5"
LC9 - 3.0"
Advantage: 3913 by 1/2 inch.

Sight radius:
3913 - 5.5"
LC9 - 4.5"
Advantage: 3913 by one inch.

Trigger reach:
3913 - 3.1"
LC9 - 3.5"
Advantage: 3913 for smaller hands.

Integral lock:
3913 - none
LC9 - yes
Advantage: 3913!!!!

Magazine disconnect safety:
3913 - yes
LC9 - yes
This is a wash.

OK, let's tally:

Advantage points for 3913: 7
Advantage points for LC9: 5
"Wash" points: 4

Yes, I know the LC9 has a loaded cartridge indicator. That does not negate doing a press check to be sure there is one up the snout or not. To my mind, a complicating gadget that is just something more to go wrong.

So the good ol' 3913 stacks up pretty good when you look at the whole picture. Am I missing anything here? Open for discussion.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

An LC9 will fit in my pocket while the 39xx won't fit nearly as well.

__________________
I miss my 4546 the most.

I thank you for the comparison I am always looking to learn and compare

But it looks like you are a "Smith Guy" who was really hoping for the Smith to be the one. But I agree the old guy stands up well

but lets be honest 7oz is huge and may be worth a couple points at least
Hank

Even with the seven oz difference I will stick with smith I have been carrying long enough that 24Oz is light don't get me wrong the LC9 is a good gun I just like steel I carry a M37 or a 3914 and if I think SHTF I will carry a Commander 45 Don't mind me I am just a old fart

__________________
Freedom Is Not Free

Another advantage of the 3913 is that it has stood the test of time.

I had to make the decision on the same two guns...actually I went with the 908 which is the low-rent district brother to the 3913......mainly because of the old-school all steel thing....I must admit, the LC9 because it's lighter and shorter may make a more attractive piece from a concealability standpoint.

I have an LC9 on the way to me as I type this. I'm a big S&W fan. I started with the 6906, then moved to the 3913, then moved to the CS9 in my quest for a light carry piece. I like the safety, mag disconnect, and loaded chamber indicator. Will probably never use the internal lock, so it's a wash. In this day and age, there is no reason to carry a 28 ounce gun when you can get the same firepower in a 21 ounce gun. Even my CS9 gets annoying when carried in the waistband. When the LC9 gets here and gets shot a bit, it's gonna replace my CS9 as carry gun. I may keep the CS9 to wear on the belt during cooler months, but it offers no extra firepower for a 5 ounce weight difference. I may sell the CS9 since I don't need 2 sub compact 9MM's, and i only shoot a few times a year now. For sure, the S&W third gens are nicer, but they launch 9MM bullets just like the LC9. I'll carry the gun more if it's lighter. My CS9 is no good to me in the safe while I'm at Walmart.

May I ask why you went from the 6906 to the 3913?I like the single stack but isnt the gun slightly larger?

Thanks Hank

The 6906 is double stack and the 3913 is single stack. Same slide and barrel on a fatter grip.The 3913 is slightly lighter and easier to carry.

The 3913 works, the LC9.. read the Ruger forum. I'll pass.

__________________
Loyalty Above All.. but Honor

I'd like to get a an LC9- for rainy days, canoe trips, etc.

At $300 not such a bad thing to have around as a "spare" or boat gun.

But for a primary, daily CCW gun I'll stick with my 4014 (note- LC9 does not come in a .40 S&W version......) or 3913.

And the main reason for that- I primarily shoot full sized 3rd gen S&W's with DA/SA action, That's what I like, am most familiar with, and most comfortable with. Therefore- I'd like my daily carry piece to be a smaller, lighter version of that.

I'll have to admit though- I really like Rugers. The company and the guns. I like their revolvers a lot and even their O/U shotguns.

I'd have no trouble, in fact would welcome, a Ruger into the rotation.

In my opinion a really overlooked gun in all of these comparisons to 3913's, CS9's, etc., is the Walther PPS.

My son has one and it's an awesome CCW piece. It comes in 9mm and .40 S&W. Very nice night sights are available.

The only downside, and perhaps why it is not compared as much as the Ruger- it cost half again as much as an LC9 or SR9c.

Still, I'd rank it (Walther PPS) as the best polymer framed CCW gun on the market bar none.

+1. I'm always amused when I pass the magazine racks in the bookstore and see the "latest greatest conceal carry 9mm!!".

The 3913 has yet to be surpased......by any gunmaker....including S&W.

I recall going to the range with another officer to shoot his brand new Springfield EMP 9mm. He paid a fortune for it as I recall. It didn't group as well as my 3913 which was a fraction of the price.

The Kimber offering, M&P, EMP, Walthers ect do not do the job as well as the 3913, IMO of course. Regards 18DAI

I agree lighter is better for carrying, but there's something to be said for an extra 7 ounces when you're shooting.

In my experience the 3rd gen compact 39s have been tops in reliability with the whole spectrum of 9mm ammo, and that's from 90gn soft points, right through 147gn, sub-sonic and +P+ alike.

/c

No contest for me.........I'll take the 3913 every time!!

The Ruger LC9 is a self defense, up close gun. I am sure the 3913 gets tighter groupings, but I'll take the 5-7 ounce weight difference and slimmer design of the LC9 over a 2 inch grouping. 99% of us will never fire a weapon is self defense, but we all carry one. I want that experience to be as comfortable as possible. My choice of the LC9 was over a Bodyguard .380. I know the Bodyguard is lighter, but .380 ammo is expensive, and I would rather have a little power behind my shots. The LC9 gives an scceptable cartridge in a lighter gun. That Springfield EMP will kill a guy just like the 3913, or the LC9. If I ever have to use a gun, it will be up close, and I'm not gonna care if my groupings could have been 2 inches tighter. I love the 3rd gens, but I have gone from the 6906 to the 3913 to the CS9, and none of them felt comfortable in my waistband. On the belt with a jacket, they are great, but I have noticed I have been leaving the CS9 at home when I go out. The reason I want the LC9 is to lessen those times.

I imagine S&W will be offering their version of the LC9, just like they came out with the Bodyguard to counter the LCP. But I don't want to wait until that happens.

A handgun must be unquestionably reliable.
The 39xx is proven.
The LC9 is cute.

So why buy any new handgun? Should we all wait 2 years after a gun comes out? Why does anyone carry a 1911, then? They're known to be picky. The reviews on the LC9 are very positive. When i get mine, I'll shoot 250 rounds of range ammo and a box of my carry ammo. if it performs, it's reliable. And the 3913 I had was very reliable, but it did fail to extract once. I remember being amazed by that. ANY machine can occasionally hiccup.

While I personally prefer the 3913 to ALL other semi autos in that class, I would not.....and didn't....as far as I see, say anything negative about Ruger or the LC9.

I've examined an LC9 but have not shot it yet. I will say I'd take an LC9 over any handgun CURRENTLY produced by S&W.

If the LC9 shoots as well as its made Ruger has a winner on its hands.

BUT - owning a 3913 I have no need of another compact single stack 9mm. Except for maybe a 3914......

Just wanted to clarify my position. Regards 18DAI

I agree. I wish I had never sold my 3913 to purchase my CS9. I'm sure the 3913 is a more refined gun over the LC9. But for IWB carry, the 3913 was too heavy, at nearly 27 ounces loaded. The LC9 is lighter and more comfortable to carry.

Well there is a 3913 in forty, the 4040PD. The Ruger has it's points, it's size and weight are of some advantage, but probably the main one would be the fact it's about half the price of LNIB 3913. I have one of the early pre-rail TSWs' with the short grip making it the smallest of the 3913s' and I don't believe I'd part with it anytime soon. I also don't care to spend all day pulling the trigger on the LC9, if they're going to make the trigger pull that long why bother with a safety on top of it all?

about a year and a half ago I bought a g26 for my small carry. great gun, small, easy to shoot well. just a bit too big (read wide). never could find a 3953 (really like that action!!). have a 4053 so we are covered in .40 but wanted a 9, not a 380 for pocket carry. so, friday, lc9 came home. it ain't a smith 3953 but it will work for what I need and it's thinner than the g26 by enough, I already like it. the trigger will need some practice as it's different. not bad, just different. one man’s trash and all... wish I had known about that 4040pd when it came about... I think I would have hunted one of them down... what I know now, but did NOT know then though... we learn, that's what is neat with these endeavors...

Buy what ever you like.
If you can trust your life to it, by all means carry it.

Well, I guess I'll jump on in here. I like 18DAI, am a firm beleiver in the 3913 being the finest small carry 9MM out there. You are the first person I've ever heard say that the 3913 was to heavy for concealed IWB carry. Now I'm not some giant of a guy, only top out at 5'9" and 180lbs, and during my time as an LEO I carried a 4506-1 as duty weapon with the 3913 on my vest.

I'm 6'2, 225 pounds. I can carry the 3913, but would rather save the 6 ounces and be more comfortable. A carry gun is something that you want all the time. Something lighter and thinner is gonna get carried more. For a metal single stack 9MM, they're top notch. I wish I still had it, but even if I did, it would be a range gun or occasional belt carry. There was another post on here somewhere of a guy doing that exact thing to his 3913. he bought an LC9 and was so enamored with it's ease of carry that the 3913 went into the safe and the LC9 is his new carry piece. Not disparaging the 3913 at all, but I'd rather carry something smaller and lighter with the same firepower. The big reason i went to the LC9 is because it has the manual safety and mag disconnect that draws me to the S&W's. Others see them as being negatives, but I don't.

If S&W offered something like it, I'd go with that. But even the CS9 is 5 ounces heavier. That's considerable when talking about carrying it all day in your waistband.

I had posted these pics in an earlier thread. But a picture is worth 1000 words. As I had said in the other thread, the 3913 is my favorite and there is not much comparison to the LC9 as far as which is the better pistol. If you are looking for size only for concealment, the LC9 is a desireable pistol. Close range only.

__________________
Mike in SouthCentral Kentucky

when you see those photos. there is only one thing any reasonable, sane, sober & thinking person can say:

"why the hell isn't S&W making this pistol TODAY?????"

I too have both the 3913,and LC9. I have been carrying both for ccw pistols as of late and the LC9 came in handy one night after coming home from a long trip moving a relative from Los Angeles to Nebraska[outside Omaha city limits]. One of those iileagles said that our stuff was his so,the 2 9s came out along with the .500 revolver. Never seen an iileagle run back home to Mexico so fast.

I had a 3913 TSW that I bought NIB and in one of the most stupid things I have ever done, traded it because I didn't like the rail. I later found out that S&W will remove the rail. Anyway, I haven't found another one. I have had my eye on a 908 (budget version of the 3913) in a local shop, and yesterday I decided that I just wasn't going to find another NIB 3913, so I got the 908. It too is NIB, and made in 2009, according to the test fired shell envelope.

I bought a LC9 a couple of months ago, but my wife decided the LC9 is hers...so now we don't have to fight over it.

A picture sure IS worth 1000 words. Look at the contrast between that LC9 and the 3913, especially the grip and height. The 3913 is a much NICER gun, but the LC9 is more comfy to carry all day long. I do still wish i had my 3913, but I'm sure the LC9 will get carried much more often.

Nice comparison. I,too,have a 3913, and it shoots fine, just about 2-3
in low at 25 ft. any way to adjust either sight? mine has standard white dot novak sights, and I would like to raise rear (or lower front) just a tad. any ideas? tks to all

The front sight is dovetailed and easily replaceable. I've put Trijicon night sights on mine, and it shoots to point of aim at 21 feet. You could file down the front sight to get a higher point of impact.

John

__________________
- Cogito, ergo armatus sum -

thanks, John. might try to file front down a hair.

I had a 3913 once that wouldn't feed hollow point ammo for anything. I sent it back to S&W, they replaced the barrel and something else (can't remember what, it's been a lot of years) and, while it was better, I still had enough issues with it that I finally sold it. I have an LC9 now that has been absolutely perfect for almost 1000 rounds. I like the DAO better than DA/SA and the trigger has gotten much better through use. I liked the 3913, but if it's not reliable, it's just a paperweight to me.

__________________
Gary

i havew klooked at the lc9 but i really couldnt find any really good reason th replace my glock 26 or my sw 3913. they work i have stuff for th3em ie holsters extra mags and spare parts. or my sig 232 also. i know they work and always work. its that simple

I've owned the Glock 26 and the 3913, the LC9 is MUCH easier to conceal and was much more comfortable. The Glock 26 was too chunky for me. I forget the LC9 is even there, and you can't pocket carry a Glock 26 like you can the LC9.

I own a 3913 that I carry OWB in the winter. It is one fine gun. I looked at the LC9 for summer carry but ended up with a Kahr CM9. The CM9 has been a pleasant surprise. Very accurate and low felt recoil for such a small gun. It is very easy to pocket carry and has been 100% reliable. Did I say that the 3913 is one fine gun?

Thanks for the invitation to post. I am looking for a good CCW and thought the site had some good info. I will continue to enjoy. Thanks!

I have a Kahr CW9 and a S&W 3913 (and used to own a 3914 years ago). Some thoughts on these two compacts....

The CW9 is very reasonably priced, they can be found under $400 these days. It's a much lighter gun than the 3913, about 17 ozs. empty, and a bit thinner and smaller overall than the 3913, but not by much. A fully loaded 3913 can feel like a larger gun.

The Kahr CW9 shoots very well, it's accurate and the recoil is quite manageable for a compact 9mm, though the S&W 3913 is superior. The Kahr's trigger pull is very smooth, consistent and pretty light; it seems to improve the more I shoot it. In contrast, the 3913 has a pretty heavy DA and the SA pull could be better; I lightened both up by installing a lighter Wolff hammer mainspring.

The CW9 is a simple, straightforward pistol, it has no safeties, loaded chamber indicators, locks or other such devices. The CW9 is an excellent concealed carry 9mm, as is the PM9 (CM9). It's really too large to carry in a pocket, though it feels very good in an IWB holster, as does the 3913.

The 3913/14 holds 8+1 rounds, the CW9 7+1. The S&W has the safety lever and the mag disconnect; some folks might find these features useful. I think the S&W 3913 would be a better (safer?) gun for those folks who don't always follow proper gun-handling practices; you'd really have to screw up to experience an AD with a 3rd generation Smith.

The 3913(14) is a very finely made firearm, it feels like a real gun in the hand (at least to me), something built to last for generations. The CW9, on the other hand, feels like a quality pistol but, like all polymer-framed guns, it seems a bit disposable. I really don't see any "classic" polymer Kahrs showing up on auction sites in twenty years, though perhaps their steel-framed pistols will stand the test of time.

I have the 3913 and it carries very well in the crossbreed supertuck, it has been my everyday carry for awhile, I have a Kahr cw9 which is smaller but I always know that I can trust my 3913 I have had it for about 7 years and never had any problems.

Personally, I think these are two separate guns for different modes of carry. It's like comparing Grapefruit and Oranges. Both are citrus, but both are used for different reasons.

The 3913 / 3953 is a prime example of a great carry / shooting gun. However, I limit my carry of these two firearms to either OWB or IWB carry simply because they are on the heavy and bulky side for Pocket Carry. These guns are also MUCH MUCH nicer to shoot. My 3913 had 1200 rounds through it in a point shooting class over a weekend with no failures, jams, or anything like that. I also only had 3 magazines (THAT part SUCKED, I took care of that when I returned, I now have 8). It's a pleasant accurate gun to shoot. My 3913 is currently retired and I carry a 3953 as I wanted something easier to conceal and this gun with it's flat edges and DAO trigger fits the bill nicely.

The LC-9 / PF-9 though was designed to be carried in a pocket or IWB. It's small enough to fit this role, without being overly large. The LC-9 isn't bad to shoot, but I wouldn't want to spend all day, or even an hour at a range with it. 4 mags through it and I'm probably done. However, it's not meant to be a range gun, but something pulled as a last ditch effort from a pocket.

While I have a 3913 NLS and I love it...

At some point here we all know S&W is going to realize they are missing out on sales of a thin compact single stack 9mm/.40SW/.45ACP version of the M&P. And when they do make it, they will eat up a chunk of that market. As much as I do love Ruger, I don't like being hit with a one size fits all model that has to come with the LCI and external safety lever. If they offer one without those two options then I would give one a try. As it stands, the XDm single stack .45ACP is a great pocket sized gun and I hope S&W is in overdrive trying to bite into those sales.

OP, what you consider an advantage may be a disadvantage to others. And if the LC9 is 7 ozs lighter empty, how can it be 7 ozs lighter loaded when it carries one less round. The 3913 would be 7 ozs heavier plus the weight of one round.

Intent has a big part in the advantages. If looking for more concealibility, the LC9 comes out ahead. Otherwise, it's pretty much personal preference.

Shoot them both and decide for yourself.

I've only handled and fired one LC9 to date. I tried it with at least 4 different types of hollowpoints available for training use.

Similar to the gun's owner, I experienced a number of light-strike, failure-to-fires with different ammo.

The owner returned the gun to Ruger, who sent it back stating they replaced the hammer spring (found to be too light) and the mag catch (dropping mags for the owner, but it didn't happen with me).

Initially the gun's owner said it was working normally ... until the light strikes started back up.

He tired of fooling with it and sold it off.

If you get one that works with whatever ammo you like to use (or have to use), and you don't mind the trigger, it's not like it's anyone's business but yours, is it?

I have no desire to own one.

Even if I did, I'd give Ruger at least another year to resolve whatever teething pains might be surfacing according to some owner reports (but then I feel that way about any brand new model offering from any manufacturer, as I dislike being a Beta Tester ).

I'd not think to compare this Ruger with either a 3913 or CS9, for anything other than being smallish and chambered in the 9mm cartridge.

Compare it to a P11, maybe ...

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

I wish S&W would make a slightly scaled up 9mm version of the 380 Bodyguuard. I love my 380BG, even though its 380, now a 9mm BG that is slim and pocket-worthy would be great.

/\ What he said. I want a Bodyguard 9mm (w/o the laser) too.

I do own a Ruger LC9 and with over 1,500 rounds down range it has been perfect. No malfunctions and no parts breakages. I carry it as my on duty BUG and it serves the role very well. And believe me, I do not know just throw on anything when I go to work. I ran my LC9 through the paces. And FWIW it was an early production model. I suspect that the percentage of LC9's with problems are equal to any production gun. I recently purchased a set of XS big tritium dot sights and a Galloway trigger kit. For those you who are not familiar, Galloway Precision is to Ruger as Apex Tactical is to S&W. I have not had a chance to install the kit yet, but reports from those who have are very favorable.

Now just to be clear, the 39XX series is one of the best guns ever made and if there was a 9mm hall of fame it would have the largest display. But a 3954 does not slide into my front left pocket after strapping on my duty gear.

I've also been hoping S&W would revisit the idea of a slightly smaller single column mag 9mm pistol.

Dunno whether I'd want it to be produced from the M&P or the Bodyguard platform. Not sure what it would take in the way of slide mass, which would probably have a bearing on which way they decided (have decided?) to go.

They really need something to fill the gap left by the discontinuance of the CS9.

At least the M&P has a better trigger than the Bodyguard, and the takedown lever is easier to manipulate.

The laser idea was probably a good response to some amount of current market demand for the device, but I'd much rather see it as an available option than something standard.

__________________
Ret LE Firearms inst & armorer

Maybe they will just redesign the old SW9.

I think that any of the 3 models (M&P, SD or Bodyguard) would lend itself to be redesigned to a compact slim 9mm. The SD is already slimmer than the M&P and looks like it could be trimmed down even more. I held out for a long time waiting for S&W to make a gun to compete with Kahr (and now pretty much everyone else). The whole time I held tightly to my 642 & 638 for back up gun service. And while those guns are still very capable, I wanted something that reloaded faster. So for now it's the LC9.

I originally wanted a 3913 but couldn't find one so I ended up getting a 3953. I really like the pistol and don't regret not having a 3913. I'm still looking for one though. LC9 is a wonderful pistol too but it will never be as nice as the 3953 is for me.

I bought an LC9 after having a 3913 that suffered a cracked frame and was retired. I looked for quite a while to try to find an ideal pocket carry gun, like everybody else, and finally decided the LC9 would be it. Now, I'm not so sure. I had a problem with the extra long trigger pull even though I shoot DA revolvers OK. Finally gave up and sent it back to Ruger and they replaced the trigger bar, firing pin and spring. It is much better now. I can shoot satisfactory groups at 10 yards now which is my minimal acceptance criteria. By the way, I had over 1000 rounds through it before sending it back. The thing that bothers me quite a bit is the overall manufacturing quality problems Ruger has been having on these newer guns. Like someone above said: read the Ruger forums. I'm not giving up on it at this point and take it to the range a couple times a week and put 30 to 50 rounds through it. That's plenty because it bangs up my trigger finger quite a bit. I think I'm trying to build up confidence in it. I never had this concern with the 3913 until I dropped it on the concrete and subsequently the crack showed up. I'm still contemplating going to a S&W 642 which I had about settled on until the LC9 showed up.

Since the Ruger can be purchased new for around $300 - I'd like to offer you Ruger guys a deal - I'll take your tired old 3913 for $300 and you have new gun at no cost!!

Pete

__________________
Don't tread on me