Ruger LC9 vs Walther PPS

[btmj]

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.

[B.N.Real]

Interesting write up on the Ruger LC9 versus the Walther PPS.

Budsgunshop.com sells the PPS for $502 versus $340 for the LC9-free shipping to a FFL for both.

I am glad you are happy with the LC9,your Walther PPS is also availible in 40 Smith and several members here swear by that gun too (as well as the PPS 9mm).

The difference between a handgun that works and a handgun that is 'investment' made is also noted-but that details the difference in price too.

I can't stand a long travel trigger on a semi auto though so I'd probably go with the PPS myself although I am very partial to the M&P 40c right now.

And there's always the H&K 2000 compact 40 smith (P2000SK) if I fall into a bucket of money.

Man,that's a nice handgun.

[kinoons]

I cannot comment to the ruger, as I don't own one, but my walther PPS is my daily carry for the reasons listed above.

[WildBill45]

I own or owned both, and there is quite a difference between the Ruger, which I really like, and the PPS. The PPS is in another class ... Period!

The LC9 is good, don't get me wrong.

Here is my video on the LC9 hours after I bought it!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9fxT79DBa9s

I kept saying LCR, LC9 in the video since I just bought it, and Ruger uses too many LC names anywho!!!

I was not shooting video when I owned the PPS!

[btmj]

comparison photos of the PPS and the LC9. I put a Crimson Trace on the LC9... I feel better if my wifes carry weapon has a laser. She is an experienced shooter, but if push comes to shove, I want her to have every possible advantage.

Jim

[TxFlyFish]

Thanks for the review!!! ... Ill give both a try as well this weekend

[btmj]

WildBill... I agree. The Walther is in a different class. There is a pleasure that comes from handling and operating it. Shooting high grade weapons is very enjoyable.

But my opinion is that an outstanding self defence weapon does not need to be a high grade weapon that exudes craftsmanship and class. It needs to be a reliable and rugged tool. It needs to be designed to maximize the shooter's potential to hit a moving target at close range under stressful circumstances. Basic no-frills 1911's, Glocks, Sig 226/229, S&W J-frames, Berreta 92's ... these kind of weapons don't inspire much passion (particularly the glocks and J-frames), but they work, and they work well. My prefered carry weapon is a glock, but if all of my glocks were lost in a flood, I would not shed a tear. I would file an insurance claim and buy the identical replacements.

While I admire and appreciate the quality of the PPS, that is not why I bought it. If Gaston had gotten off his duff and built a single stack version of the G26, I would have bought it... probably saving $150 in the process. The PPS has more "quality" than I need, but it is an outstanding weapon.

[zombieslayer]

As stated- the Walther is in a class all its own.

[wild cat mccane]

count me in the skeptical crowd that is calling out your review...the PPS is amazing...the LC9 is a dressed up PF-9.

[TxFlyFish]

Just browsing the Walther forums and all of a sudden i am not sure anymore. There are disproportionate number of reported issues with the PPS (feed/ejection), if I like it I'll make sure to get one with the BB code (2011)

[zombieslayer]

Hey if a heavier, longer trigger pull and a manual safety are what you want go for it.

[btmj]

mccane wrote

"count me in the skeptical crowd that is calling out your review...the PPS is amazing...the LC9 is a dressed up PF-9."

I am not sure what that means ... "calling out your review"... Do you disagree with something I said?

I don't want to imply that the PPS is not worth the price. For me it is absolutely worth the price I paid, because it is the only gun on the market that does what it does. My point was this: If Glock had made the PPS, it would not have been as nice, it would have been less expensive, but like all Glocks it would have been an excellent combat weapon.

I have never shot a Kel Tec PF-9, but I handled one along with the Ruger LC9. I have a minimum standard of fit-n-finish, and the Kel Tec did not meet it. The LC9 did. It does not bother me one bit that Ruger may have borrowed design ideas from Kel Tec. There has not been a truly original handgun design in almost a century, they all copy from each other... The FN 5.7 may be the exception.

[loose_holster_dan]

if the lc9 is a dressed up pf9, it better be one hell of a dress! the pf9 BLOWS! it was my most regretted purchase by far.

[Marquezj16]

I was also surprised by the LC9s accuracy.

The more I shoot it, the more impressed I am.

[Walklightly]

I've shot the PPS, and I was impressed, I yet to even see or handle a LC9 in person.

I've been leaning towards the LC9 but heavier, and longer trigger doesn't sound good, TBS, I carry a J-frame, month's will tell, I'm well armed for now.

[Carry_24/7]

I have no experience with the LC9, but I have the PPS; a great CC pistol. In giving up my full sized guns and and Glocks for more convenient CC options, the PPS has been my best and favorite buy, with my LCP coming in second.

I really respect Ruger, and have two of them, and I also want an LC9.

I say buy both.

[wild cat mccane]

sorry to be combative.

However, the PF-9 has lighter trigger or the same (variation) as the LC9. The LC9 is a copy of the PF-9. With a safety and a heavier or equal weigth trigger.

No one is calling the PF-9 trigger awesome (well, go to KTOG and in fact jesus created the trigger). I suspect those who are proud owners of the LC9 have never held or fired the PF-9. They are nearly identical.

To say the LC9 has more flip is strange. Flip is not soley measured by bore height as you surmise. The PPS is heavier. I found the PF-9 and LC9 to be equal to a +P 38 in a airweight revolver. The PPS feels like a normal sized 9mm framed gun.

Given the trigger, the PPS should be more accurate without practice. Difference in weight and length of travel of the trigger. Not a science, I completely agree, but the average shooter should *in theory* have less movement in the gun in a normal pull of the PPS.

I disagree with your review.

[zombieslayer]

I take a lot of first time shooters out and they always are able to shoot the pps accurayeky with little fuss. The pf9 takes a lot longer to get accurate with, imo.

[balance]

It needs to be designed to maximize the shooter's potential...

I agree with this, and I think the same way when it comes to a defensive pistol. I appreciate quality, but I've owned pistols that I would consider top notch, that I couldn't shoot well.

If Gaston had gotten off his duff and built a single stack version of the G26, I would have bought it...

Glock did design a single-stack pistol, the Glock 36, but unfortunately it doesn't share the same reputation for reliability as the double-stack models.

There are disproportionate number of reported issues with the PPS

This is pretty common for pistols this size. Glock 36, Beretta Nano, Kimber Solo, Walther PPS, Springfield EMP, Kel-Tec...

I can only tell you that with around a thousand rounds of ammo through my PPS, it has been completely reliable, and seems to be easier for me to maximize my potential with it, than with other pistols it's size.

I suggest you find what works for you.

[cebur19]

I was very impressed with the review. I will give it an excellent grade, informative, and well written.

I own the LC9 and the PF9. Muzzle flip and recoil is more noticeable on the PF9.
The LC9 trigger is worse than the PF9.

The LC9 is surprisingly accurate once you get by the long trigger pull and break almost against the frame.

After reading your review I think I will try the PPS, and probably will buy it.

[kinoons]

There have been some reports of issues with extracting. The majority are due to limp wristing, the rest occur during initial break in.

By following the procedures here 99% of problems can be resolved.

http://concealedcarryforum.com/forum...?TOPIC_ID=9003

Follow these procedures and your PPS will sing a perfect tune.

[cptnugget]

I also found this review informative. I'm a relative newcomer and the LC9 is my first subcompact. I don't mind the (what feels to me) light, smooth, but long trigger pull. I like everything else about the gun as well and feel confident and reliable with it.

My wife will also be in the market for a concealable 9mm soon and the PPS will be one of the top choices to try, so I may have a chance to compare them, which I look forward to.

[Coltman 77]

While I admire and appreciate the quality of the PPS, that is not why I bought it. If Gaston had gotten off his duff and built a single stack version of the G26, I would have bought it... probably saving $150 in the process. The PPS has more "quality" than I need.

You can never have "too much quality" with a firearm you may need to defend your life or your family's.

And in terms of "saving money" -- what value do you put on your loved one's lives? Apparently it's $150.00.

I've had a 9mm PPS for almost three years now and it's been perfect with an assortment of fmj and jhp ammo.



The Ruger products have problems galore and can't hold a candle to the PPS.

[btmj]

You can never have "too much quality" with a firearm you may need to defend your life or your family's.

And in terms of "saving money" -- what value do you put on your loved one's lives? Apparently it's $150.00.

I have to throw down the BS Flag on that comment. By that logic, the only firearms suitable for carry are the most expensive, high-end firearms. Those people armed with mere glocks, S&Ws, Walthers, and Berrettas are fools because they are not carrying a Les Bauer or Ed Brown. This comment uber-failed.

You missed my point in my first posting... The PPS is a great gun, and does what no other gun currently does... Namely It is glock-like single stack 9mm/40 with a 0.9 inch slide width that costs 20% more than a glock. The LC9 is completely different, but for ~ $380 retail, it offers great value. The PPS and the LC9 are both different from each other, but both work.

[cptnugget]

The Ruger products have problems galore

Does this refer to Ruger products in general, or to the ones under discussion here (the LC9 and LCP)? And is it based on a sampling of reported problems on the Internet or on something else?

Thanks for the additional information.