M&P 9 Shield or Ruger LC9

[fbcmrjrtykr]

I proudly shoot the SD40 VE but am thinking about getting a 9mm for CC. I'm looking at both of these pistols. I like the reliability of my current S&W, the warranty, and feel of the Shield but the Ruger is slightly thinner, more rounded, and has the tactile indicator for loaded chamber. On the downside, the LC9 has limited or no warranty. Both felt good in my hand.

Anybody out there have hands on experience with either or both that would care to weigh in?

Thanks,

 

[Maximumbob54]

The Shield is smaller IMHO from owning a Shield and having rented an LC9. I find S&W mags to be far more available than Ruger mags. Maybe that's just me though. But don't think Ruger won't have your back if something legitimate fails on your gun.

 

[GKC]

I proudly shoot the SD40 VE but am thinking about getting a 9mm for CC. I'm looking at both of these pistols. I like the reliability of my current S&W, the warranty, and feel of the Shield but the Ruger is slightly thinner, more rounded, and has the tactile indicator for loaded chamber. On the downside, the LC9 has limited or no warranty. Both felt good in my hand.

Anybody out there have hands on experience with either or both that would care to weigh in?

Thanks,

I have had both, and hands down I prefer the Shield. In fact, I plan to buy another when 9mm becomes more readily available...I don't want one in .40, and the only reason I sold mine when I did was I needed the money for something I wanted more.

Ruger does not state a warranty because of the limitations in the Magnuson-Moss warranty act ( see link: Magnuson ) but I can tell you from direct experience, as well as anecdotal reports, that Ruger has one of the best, if not the best, customer service programs in the business. They pay for shipping both ways, and they definitely will take care of any issues.

My reasons for preferring the Shield over the LC9, even though the Shield is bigger, are these:

1) I do not like a LCI like that on the LC9
2) I do not like a magazine disconnect; on Ruger's SR polymer guns, it's extremely easy to remove...on the LC9, not so easy. The Shield doesn't have a magazine disconnect.
3) It's very easy on the Shield to remove the striker and clean out the channel...no pins to knock out. Not so easy on the LC9.
4) The trigger on the Shield is much better than that of the LC9, IMO. Rumors say that Ruger is going to make a striker-fired LC9 that will have a much better trigger...but nothing official has been announced yet.

If I was going to buy something like a Ruger LC9, I'd actually opt for the new LC380, which is a LC9 chambered for .380ACP. It's supposed to have less recoil, easier to rack the slide (which I never found difficult on the LC9), and a better trigger. Another choice to consider is S&W's new BG380 without the laser.

I'd certainly take a LC9 over a similar sized Kahr, Kel-Tec, SCCY, or other comparable guns...and mainly because of Ruger's phenomenal service.

 

[Philadelphia Patriot]

I'd take the shield 9 simply because it has a better trigger than the LC9. If they LC9 had the better trigger then I'd take that over the shield 9

 

[Florida J Frame]

Don't question Ruger customer support. Every bit as good as S&W. I was a very early LCP owner and they were great. You can safely choose between the pistols without any concern for the support.

 

[Surly]

+1 for the Shield, if you can find one in stock.

 

[fbcmrjrtykr]

Great input from all. This is the kind of stuff you can only get from those who have fired and maintained these weapons. Thanks much.

 

[bucknrut23]

Don't buy any smaller size pistol without at least getting to dry fire it a few times. Ask them to take off the trigger locks to try it or don't buy it. So many have extremely long double action pulls (like the bodyguard) and extremely heavy pull weights. The shield has neither. The trigger is remarkably sweet on the Shield compared to others in the same size group. With smaller guns it's all about the triggers.

 

[ChrisKalan]

You do realize you came to a S&W forum to ask if a S&W product is better than a Ruger product. Although I do agree with all the views stated above, we are a little biased

That being said, I've owned an LC9. I had multiple feed issues with the gun. I called support. They told me keep on shooting it and tried to get me off the line as quick as possible, no explanation just "click". I later learned through research that sometimes guns need to be broken in. I find that disappointing since my Glocks and S&W never needed a break in. They just worked and were reliable out of the box.

I must be an isolated incident since the reviews of their CS is really good, or my standards are higher, which S&W CS have met when I've contacted them.

Bottom line, get the Shield. However, I'm biased.

 

[xcrdr]

I've had 2 LC9's. Never had a problem with either. Feed everything I put through them. Great little carry guns. Don't care for the trigger. Shield trigger feels better for sure. LC9 feels better IWB but not by much. They are close. If Ruger changes the trigger it will get interesting. I wish either came with nicer sights, but as is the Shield has better sights IMO.
Also, the Shield comes with 2 mags in the box, Ruger 1. Tie breaker for me is the trigger.

 

[ditto1958]

I proudly shoot the SD40 VE but am thinking about getting a 9mm for CC. I'm looking at both of these pistols. I like the reliability of my current S&W, the warranty, and feel of the Shield but the Ruger is slightly thinner, more rounded, and has the tactile indicator for loaded chamber. On the downside, the LC9 has limited or no warranty. Both felt good in my hand.

Anybody out there have hands on experience with either or both that would care to weigh in?

Thanks,

The warranty should not be an issue. Rugers pretty much have a lifetime warranty. They just dont put it in writing for legal reasons. They stand behind their products.

Also, I don't think the tactile loaded chamber indicator makes any sense. All guns are loaded all the time. If you're serious about CCW, you will carry with your gun hot. A loaded chamber indicator serves no purpose.

If you can't shoot both before buying, at least try carrying them in the store to see if one is more comfortable for you.

Both are excellent products.

 

[fbcmrjrtykr]

Yes, I am aware that the opinions I get in this form might be a bit biased but my experience has been that, for the most part, the members here tend to give fairly honest responses. What I've gotten on this post alone has provided what I think is valuable information. There have been several comments that were very positive about the Ruger. I know this is a S&W forum, but I do believe that the members on this forum are gun owners who have a desire to promote the safe and and responsible ownership of all firearms, regardless of manufacturer. I am proud to own my SD40VE and am leaning heavily towards the Shield. But I also hope to own a Para Ordinance .45 someday (right after my oil well hits). I look forward to learning from my S&W brotherhood.

 

[ditto1958]

LOL. When your oil well comes in, you may even want to splurge on an Ed Brown!

 

[GKC]

But I also hope to own a Para Ordinance .45 someday (right after my oil well hits).

Until then (or instead of, IMO) consider the Ruger SR1911. They are excellent guns and affordable. In fact, I'd rather have a SR1911 than a Colt.

LOL. When your oil well comes in, you may even want to splurge on an Ed Brown!

I actually was on the brink of ordering one. I had it all laid out, and as I had it configured, it was about $4,000. Had my initials on the slide, a custom serial number, and all...then I thought, "What am I ever going to do with this gun? I won't carry it...I probably won't even want to shoot it. I can buy several 1911s for that amount of money, and lots of ammo." So...I didn't do it.

Sure, I know others feel differently...and everyone can spend their money how they see fit. For me, though, it just didn't make sense. Now, if I had hundreds of millions of dollars, instead of hundreds of dollars, then it would be a different matter...maybe.

 

[Will Carry]

I have an LC9 and carry it often. It is 100% reliable. I just wish it had a better trigger and I am not a "trigger snob". I lot of critics say the loaded chamber indicator is bad, or the manual safety. These features do not effect the way it shoots, but the trigger does. Shame on you Ruger! Bad trigger! No biscuit!

 

[GKC]

I have an LC9 and carry it often. It is 100% reliable. I just wish it had a better trigger and I am not a "trigger snob".

The LC9 is one of the few pistols on which my wife can easily rack the slide. In a self-defense situation, I doubt that the trigger pull will be all that noticeable...but reliability certainly will be.

I admit I am a bit of a fanatic on the cleaning out the striker/firing pin channel...I just wish it was as simple on the LC9 as it is on Ruger SR pistols, or the M&P/SDVE pistols. If in fact Ruger does make a striker fired version, maybe it will be more like the SR design.

 

[epj]

I don't have a LC9, but I have a Kel-Tec PF9 that is virtually identical. The KelTec is about 90-95% of the size of the Shield and is somewhat thinner. It has been completely reliable, and is surprisingly accurate. I can dump the mag at a paper paler at 7-10 yards and get all hits. The Shield is at least 50% heavier. It feels better in my hand and is more comfortable to shoot. The trigger is better, no question. The Shield costs a hundred bucks or so more, depending on where you buy. Probably well worth the difference, but I have two Shields now and still hang on to the PF9

 

[Surly]

...I don't think the tactile loaded chamber indicator makes any sense. All guns are loaded all the time. If you're serious about CCW, you will carry with your gun hot. A loaded chamber indicator serves no purpose.

I personally like them, but don't want to debate their merits in this thread. Someday we should give this topic its own thread and start a poll (if it hasn't been done already).

 

[Pondoro]

Also, I don't think the tactile loaded chamber indicator makes any sense. All guns are loaded all the time. If you're serious about CCW, you will carry with your gun hot. A loaded chamber indicator serves no purpose.

"All guns are loaded all the time" is the safe assumption when you are asking yourself, "How should I treat the muzzle and the trigger?" I agree with that premise.

But for CCW it is actually unsafe to assume the gun is loaded. A loaded chamber indicator helps you determine if the gun can protect you.

So when handling the gun always assume it is loaded. This assumption stops you from pointing it at your head, your buddy or the grill of your Porsche. When putting the gun on for CCW you always need to ask, "Is it loaded?"

Somebody said, "The most frightening sound is not the whine of a descending bomb or the roar of an enraged animal. It is a 'click' when you expected a 'bang.' "

 

[Surly]

^^^ You're a mind reader, Pondoro, these are the merits I didn't want to discuss! There's also the benefit of never accidentally ejecting an unfired round, but I still think this topic deserves its own thread.