The Firing Line Forums - View Single Post

btmj · December 12, 2011, 02:41 PM

I would like to give the forum a comparison between the Walther PPS and the Ruger LC9. My household owns both.

My daily carry for the last year or so has been a Walther PPS 9mm in an IWB holster. When wearing a heavy sweater or jacket I carry a Glock 19 in a shoulder holster. Basically, the G19 is my winter carry, the little Walther is for the other 3 seasons.

I have been shooting Glocks for 20 years. Although far from “perfect”, they are very reliable and rugged, and they fit my hand well. For better or worse, I have become very accustomed to the Glock trigger, the Glock manual of arms, and the Glock grip angle. I selected the Walther PPS because it is very “glock-like”, same manual of arms, same trigger (but probably better), and with the larger palm grip fitting it has the same grip as a Glock. Basically it is the single stack G26 that I always wished Glock would have made, but Walther beat them to it. I bought this gun before the Ruger LC9 or Sig 290 were on the market.

My wife has always carried a snub 38. But in the summer she has found it is increasingly hard to dress around the gun. The main problem was the thickness of the cylinder. She had no problem concealing my Walther, but shooting it caused a pain in the web of her hand, and caused her thumb to go numb.

So we went looking at small 380 pistols for her. After shooting the Bersa and Sig 232, she was under-whelmed by the power of the 380. She simply did not have confidence that a bullet with such light recoil could actually stop an attack. So then she tried the Ruger LC9. I thought she would have the same problem with it as she had with the Walther, but the grip is just different enough that the LC9 worked for her. So we bought one.

Comparing the Ruger LC9 to the Walther PPS is very interesting. Concealability-wise, they are essentially the same. The PPS looks bigger, but it is an illusion caused by its blocky proportions. Both guns are nicely dehorned with blended corners. The slide width of both guns is the same. The Walther is just ever so slightly thinner in the grips. In overall length, the Ruger is about a ¼ inch smaller. In height, it depends on which magazine is in each gun. The Ruger has a 7 round mag, which can have a pinky hook extension attached or not, but my wife wants the pinky hook. My Walther has both a 6 rounds “no pinky” mag, and a 7 round mag that lets you use your pinky. The Walther with the 6 round is slightly smaller in height than the Ruger. The Walther with the 7 round mag is slightly taller than the Ruger.

Shooting the two is also interesting. As I said, the Walther has a glock-like striker fire trigger, but a little smoother and crisper than a new-in-the-box Glock. I have an 1991 G17 with thousands of rounds through it, and the PPS is like that smoothed-out G17. The Ruger LC9 has a DAO trigger, and it is long. It is a light trigger, but a long pull. There is no second strike capability on the LC9 because the slide must cycle to partially-cock the hammer. My wife has been shooting DA revolvers for a long time, so she is very comfortable and accurate with this little Ruger. If you are coming from a Glock or 1911, be prepared to do a little practice.

The PPS has no manual safety and no magazine safety. The LC9 has both. The manual thumb safety on the LC9 is redundant in my opinion, since no revolver ever needed one. Fortunately, it clicks firmly into the fire position, and can be left there forever. The LC9 sights are fine, but not quite as visible as the excellent PPS sights. The PPS has a higher bore axis than does the LC9, and thus the PPS has a little more muzzle flip. Even with the extra muzzle flip, the excellent PPS trigger allows me to get on target and shoot faster than the Ruger.

Accuracy when slow shooting from a bench is excellent with both. I was surprised that the Ruger LC9 was as accurate as the PPS. With either gun, I can produce a 10 yard 5 shot ragged hole that can be covered with a quarter. But the DAO LC9 requires more concentration to do it.

In terms of fit/finish and craftsmanship, the Ruger is a well made and very functional weapon. It seems solid and well built. The Walther is a step up, and has a feel of fine craftsmanship. For some people this quality is very important. I have been happy with Glocks for 20 years, so this is not a high priority for me. That said, I certainly appreciate and enjoy the craftsmanship of my PPS.

As for price... I paid $620 for the PPS in 2010, plus $65 for a spare mag. I don’t think the prices have changed much since then. That is about $100 over the very comparable Glock 26. The Walther is no bargain, but it offers features I could not find in other guns.

Last week we paid $390 for the Ruger LC9, plus $25 for a spare mag. At this price, the Ruger is one of the greatest bargains in concealed carry weapons.

December 12, 2011, 02:41 PM	#1
btmj Senior Member Join Date: November 1, 2011 Location: Near St. Louis, Missouri Posts: 864	Ruger LC9 vs Walther PPS I would like to give the forum a comparison between the Walther PPS and the Ruger LC9. My household owns both. My daily carry for the last year or so has been a Walther PPS 9mm in an IWB holster. When wearing a heavy sweater or jacket I carry a Glock 19 in a shoulder holster. Basically, the G19 is my winter carry, the little Walther is for the other 3 seasons. I have been shooting Glocks for 20 years. Although far from “perfect”, they are very reliable and rugged, and they fit my hand well. For better or worse, I have become very accustomed to the Glock trigger, the Glock manual of arms, and the Glock grip angle. I selected the Walther PPS because it is very “glock-like”, same manual of arms, same trigger (but probably better), and with the larger palm grip fitting it has the same grip as a Glock. Basically it is the single stack G26 that I always wished Glock would have made, but Walther beat them to it. I bought this gun before the Ruger LC9 or Sig 290 were on the market. My wife has always carried a snub 38. But in the summer she has found it is increasingly hard to dress around the gun. The main problem was the thickness of the cylinder. She had no problem concealing my Walther, but shooting it caused a pain in the web of her hand, and caused her thumb to go numb. So we went looking at small 380 pistols for her. After shooting the Bersa and Sig 232, she was under-whelmed by the power of the 380. She simply did not have confidence that a bullet with such light recoil could actually stop an attack. So then she tried the Ruger LC9. I thought she would have the same problem with it as she had with the Walther, but the grip is just different enough that the LC9 worked for her. So we bought one. Comparing the Ruger LC9 to the Walther PPS is very interesting. Concealability-wise, they are essentially the same. The PPS looks bigger, but it is an illusion caused by its blocky proportions. Both guns are nicely dehorned with blended corners. The slide width of both guns is the same. The Walther is just ever so slightly thinner in the grips. In overall length, the Ruger is about a ¼ inch smaller. In height, it depends on which magazine is in each gun. The Ruger has a 7 round mag, which can have a pinky hook extension attached or not, but my wife wants the pinky hook. My Walther has both a 6 rounds “no pinky” mag, and a 7 round mag that lets you use your pinky. The Walther with the 6 round is slightly smaller in height than the Ruger. The Walther with the 7 round mag is slightly taller than the Ruger. Shooting the two is also interesting. As I said, the Walther has a glock-like striker fire trigger, but a little smoother and crisper than a new-in-the-box Glock. I have an 1991 G17 with thousands of rounds through it, and the PPS is like that smoothed-out G17. The Ruger LC9 has a DAO trigger, and it is long. It is a light trigger, but a long pull. There is no second strike capability on the LC9 because the slide must cycle to partially-cock the hammer. My wife has been shooting DA revolvers for a long time, so she is very comfortable and accurate with this little Ruger. If you are coming from a Glock or 1911, be prepared to do a little practice. The PPS has no manual safety and no magazine safety. The LC9 has both. The manual thumb safety on the LC9 is redundant in my opinion, since no revolver ever needed one. Fortunately, it clicks firmly into the fire position, and can be left there forever. The LC9 sights are fine, but not quite as visible as the excellent PPS sights. The PPS has a higher bore axis than does the LC9, and thus the PPS has a little more muzzle flip. Even with the extra muzzle flip, the excellent PPS trigger allows me to get on target and shoot faster than the Ruger. Accuracy when slow shooting from a bench is excellent with both. I was surprised that the Ruger LC9 was as accurate as the PPS. With either gun, I can produce a 10 yard 5 shot ragged hole that can be covered with a quarter. But the DAO LC9 requires more concentration to do it. In terms of fit/finish and craftsmanship, the Ruger is a well made and very functional weapon. It seems solid and well built. The Walther is a step up, and has a feel of fine craftsmanship. For some people this quality is very important. I have been happy with Glocks for 20 years, so this is not a high priority for me. That said, I certainly appreciate and enjoy the craftsmanship of my PPS. As for price... I paid $620 for the PPS in 2010, plus $65 for a spare mag. I don’t think the prices have changed much since then. That is about $100 over the very comparable Glock 26. The Walther is no bargain, but it offers features I could not find in other guns. Last week we paid $390 for the Ruger LC9, plus $25 for a spare mag. At this price, the Ruger is one of the greatest bargains in concealed carry weapons.