Ruger EC9S - experience?

[armoredman]

I keep reading about the latest Wunderpistole failures, SIG being apparently the latest, and this had me wondering about the little pocket gun I have been wanting to try out, the Ruger EC9S. It is a cheaper version of an established sidearm, but still "new", so I was wondering if anyone had tried one/heard any horror stories/had a great experience, etc. The price is REALLY hard to ignore...

[TruthTellers]

It's cheaper because it costs Ruger less to produce. They don't have to spend as much time milling serrations or dovetails and installing sights now that they're integral with the slide.

Besides that, they changed nothing else, so the internals are the same as the LC9s were. There should be no issues with these, I would buy with confidence.

[Siggy-06]

I personally think the LC9S is already cheap as it is at sub $270, and also like the option of replacing the sights.

[carguychris]

Also, AFAIK Ruger has yet to roll out an EC9S "Pro" without the thumb safety and mag disconnect, if you object to either of those features.

[TruthTellers]

The thing about a manual safety is it can always be carried in the off position. I use to hate the manual safeties, but after some thought, I actually don't mind it because of that and because there may be certain positions where I'd carry that I'd rather the safety be on.

[TunnelRat]

Originally Posted by TruthTellers

The thing about a manual safety is it can always be carried in the off position. I use to hate the manual safeties, but after some thought, I actually don't mind it because of that and because there may be certain positions where I'd carry that I'd rather the safety be on.

For me personally I either want it on the pistol and I’ll use it or I don’t want it on the pistol. Murphy’s laws seem to exist just for me and my concern would be I had decided not to use the safety but somehow in moving around it had gotten knocked on. I’d then go to use the pistol without disengaging the safety and be unpleasantly surprised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

For me personally I either want it on the pistol and I’ll use it or I don’t want it on the pistol. Murphy’s laws seem to exist just for me and my concern would be I had decided not to use the safety but somehow in moving around it had gotten knocked on. I’d then go to use the pistol without disengaging the safety and be unpleasantly surprised.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I think if you train to flick the safety off when you draw that this won't be an issue. Once it becomes muscle memory... you know.

[TunnelRat]

That’s true, training to disengage it regardless takes care of that. I wasn’t sure if you were including that in your original description.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TruthTellers]

Originally Posted by TunnelRat

That’s true, training to disengage it regardless takes care of that. I wasn’t sure if you were including that in your original description.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I didn't, I just thought about it. Most of my pistols don't have a safety, but were I carrying a gun that did or didn't, it still pays off to flip the safety down and off, whether I put it in the holster with it on or not or the gun had a safety or not.

What makes me like the Pro a bit more over the non-Pro LC9s is the magazine disconnect. I HATE magazine disconnect safeties.