So what does everyone here think about the Ruger LC9? I've looked at it, it might cost a bit more than the Kel-Tec PF-9, but that's not necessarily a bad thing.
Not a jab at you it's directed at Ruger and their "clean sheet of paper designs" I know they make some good guns but I will never but another new one due to their business practices. Ya maybe it's silly but that's how I feel.I think the LC9 will be great, once any problems that it has are rectified. Ruger does make some pretty good copies, so I wouldn't count them out.
Ditto about the LC9: I sold my pf9's because of too many issues that caused me confidence problems. Got the LC9 and liked it because the learning curve with the Ruger trigger was no more difficult than the learning curve with the pf9 - just my opinion. But I was able to swap the LC9 for the Shield and the trigger on the MP is outstanding. There is no "getting used to it" on the trigger. If you have some experience shooting, you will learn to shoot any of these, but the Shield shoots more like the Glock because of the striker-fired trigger. But I definitely preferred the LC9 over the pf9.. . . the more i shoot the LC9, the better the accuracy gets. I have had one jam with the PF9 so it's only 98 % trustworthy...IMO. I would carry either...they're about even steven to me except the fit & finnish right out of the box is better with the LC9. JMHO
Your last sentence,Dont Do IT ! the LC-9 has had sooo many issues and send backs,check Rugerforum.net for all you need to know,I dumped two lc-9s for the Shield and love it,I do miss my KT PF9 and will get one back again,mostly becasue its lighter than the Shield,both are awesome guns.I'm not against the PF-9 at all, I think it's a great gun. But in case some people can't find a PF-9 anywhere, I'm sure the LC9 would probably be a good secondary option.