Ruger LC380? Was this firearm really called for?

[Nutty4Guns]

Is it just me, or is Ruger wasting time and money with the new LC380? They already have the LCP, which is perfect for pocket carry in my opinion. The LC9 is the logical next step up from the LCP. So why the LC380? It seems like Ruger is taking a step backward with this one. Does anybody think it was needed or wanted in the marketplace? :huh:

 

[soberups]

I agree, it seems like a solution in search of a problem. If I am carrying something that weighs in at 17 ounces, it had better be firing something more powerful than a .380. My Keltec P11 weighs less than that, and holds 10+1 of 9mm+P ammo.

 

[yotehunter]

I asked this question at SHOT show. The Women at the Ruger booth told me it is catering to women. I said why would a woman want a .380 over a 9mm and she insisted that it is because it has even less recoil.

 

[Bill Siegle]

Lower recoil asked for by the market. In the LCP, .380 is not horrible but it's not a range gun for many folks. Especially those who don't shoot a lot. It's quite snappy. On a LC9 size gun, .380 will be a lot easier to shoot while still being small enough to easily conceal. Add in that changing just a few manufacturing processes gets Ruger a whole new product It might not be for you, but enough people asked for it to convince Ruger to make it.

 

[mkwerx]

Ruger also says that the recoil spring in the LC380 is lighter - and allows women and shooters with limited hand strength to operate the slide easier than they can on the LCP.

 

[stmcelroy]

Sure lower recoil might be a selling point for some.

But in all reality it's because they NEED to introduce new guns and they are already at capacity. Nothing more than throwing a different barrel and spring in the gun to create a new firearm.

 

[Nutty4Guns]

These points make sense. I just saw the ad for it for the first time this morning and couldn't understand the point. I can see now where women and seniors could appreciate owning one.

 

[AngryRedTicTac]

I don't know, I love my P938, and consider the recoil on it to be modest, and I HATE the LCP. It is horrible to shoot in my book, I'd rather shoot 10 mags of +P through my Sig than a single mag of ball through those wretched little contraptions. I agree that a large .380 is somewhat silly, but I totally get the market for it....

 

[chemist]

It's probably Ruger's answer to the Walther PK380: a full-sized but thin grip, extremely light spring, and the minimal-recoiling load that most would consider an adequate SD round.

 

[Pandaz3]

I predict it will sell well, good for Ruger, good for the industry

 

[Natty Bumpo]

Ruger has an uncanny ability to figure out what the American market wants. And they always have. And then they provide it for a reasonable price. If they happen to borrow heavily these days from other designs, well, they do that probably as well as anyone.

The Walther (Umarex built) PK380 is selling quite well for the reasons already mentioned (very easy slide manipulation in a larger, heavier more shootable frame size resulting in less felt recoil) in a modestly acceptable defense cartridge offering. Not everyone wants to shoot 9mm+P or .40 SW and they have good reasons for it.

So why shouldn't Ruger offer something similar to the PK380? It is altogether different than the LCP as the LCP provides none of these desirable features. What's more, the recoil of the LCP is oppressive to those sensitive to it, to say nothing of its ability to deliver consistent, accurate fire in the hands of most shooters. The LCP is a pocket gun. Beyond that, there's not much to recommend it. The day I might have to use an LCP would be the day I wished I had something more substantial that would deliver the goods, like a 1908 Colt, for example, to say nothing of maybe a Sig 238.

I might recommend the new Ruger or the Umarex to an older lady friend, who lacks now the hand strength she once had to adequately work the typical auto slide. She now relies on a Beretta Tomcat, and in .32 ACP for crying out loud. Although loading is easy with the tip up barrel, she can't tap-rack that pathetic little thing any better than any other auto.

Its likely to be easier to shoot well than the Walther PP or the Bersa since it will have a better grip and much better sights, more the likes of the CZ 83 or the Beretta Cheetah, but without the weight and the fat grip.

It won't be for everyone. Glock already has that covered, right? But I will bet you it sells. Let's just hope its more reliable than the Umarex.

 

[Otter]

With the popularity of the Walther .380 and the Bersa Thunder .380 I fully understand why Ruger introduced it. The LCP is way light and has a nasty recoil for such a small caliber. I don't think anyone understands the market better than Ruger right now. I bet they sell lots of them.

 

[bax]

The LCP is miserable to shoot. Many are bought by men selecting the women's gun. The Thunder and PK380 are fun to shoot and that is the point. We all like to have something fun to shoot beyond CC needs. My wife picked a Bodyguard over the LCP and loves it. She also loves her Bersa Thunder as much as her 9s but the 380s are easier on her wrist problems. Ruger is trying to fill a gap expanding on their semi successful striker fired game plan. My SR40C is a real disappointment and has been back to the factory without resolve. I doubt they will come close to the ease of use of the Walther but best it for fit and finish.

 

[Rotty]

I predict it will sell well, good for Ruger, good for the industry

I had a friend ask me about where to find a Ruger LC380 today wanting to know where he could find one. He said he looked at every local gun shop and they were sold out. He forgot about one gun shop, Skagit Arms. I suggested he try there and to his surprise they had 4. That was this morning, no clue if they have anymore at this point. I tried talking him into something a little bigger but his mind was set on the 380.

 

[Swedish K]

I don't see much reason for this gun myself, but then again they didn't create a new cartridge for it either. .45GAP ring a bell? That was definitely an answer to a question no one asked.

 

[CoastRange57]

You have to look at this from a manufacturing standpoint. Using the LC9 frame to set it up in .380 is a very simple change over in the shop, and the assembly line. Ruger's market research told them there was a market for a LC380. They would not change up the line if there was not. If you can respond to a market need fast, and with very little cost, and achieve resulting sales, then you win.

It does not matter what some people think about a .380 in the LC frame. It matters that a market segment wanted it and are responding by buying it. I carry a LC 9, and love it. I also carry sometimes a Taru TCP 380. My wife carries the 380 more, she does like the low recoil, and less weight. My daughter originally wanted a PPK380, but ended up with a LC9.

 

[lcb97269]

I have an lcp and I carry it a lot as it is about the lightest gun there is in the caliber. I also have a 1934 Beretta which weighs at least twice as much and hurts to shoot. no wonder Italians haven't won a war in about 2000 years (that was their service pistol in WW2). The lcp is not easy to control, but it doesn't hurt to shoot. It also isn't a target gun, unless you consider the target is less than 10 feet away. More than that and misses are extremely likely as the sights are worthless.

But again, it is nice to have in the pocket and almost unnoticeable to carry. That is the whole point of it, in my opinion. It is a last ditch gun to have in a do or die situation. If you want more, you are going to need a bigger, more powerful gun.