Ruger LCP "2nd Generation"

[MikeBjerum]

I'm not sure that Ruger really calls it a 2nd Generation, but that is what the gunshop ninjas are calling it.

Ruger has done two things that I have heard and seen to the LCP for the newest models:

1.  Shortened the trigger pull;
2.  Gave it a more distinctive sight.

I applaud Ruger for listening, but I question the value on this style of gun.  

Shorter Trigger Pull
The safety of this gun is in part to the long and strong trigger pull.  Are we moving to the point we will be seeing smooth and crisp followed by a thumb safety?

More Distinctive Sights
I don't see the need for this one.  This is an instinctive point and shoot defensive firearm.  It is very effective and accurate within the ten yard zone, and the minimal sights are good out to 20 yards.  What is the need for crisper and more pronounced sights?  I see this as compromising the smooth and snag free profile of a pocket pistol.  Are we now going to need to dehorn what was a very good pocket pistol?

Any other thoughts on this?

[kmitch200]

Boy, I hope they will do a retrofit!!!!
The trigger on the LCP sucks. I can make it work but it still sucks attorney balls.
Why Ruger thought that a 1/2 pound gun needed a trigger pull weight anywhere from 10-16 TIMES that is beyond me. I note that your post said nothing of reducing the weight of pull, only length. I hope they do both!

This is an instinctive point and shoot defensive firearm.

And with those sights what other choice do you have?  Yes, they can be accurate...they are also slow as $#!+ to use, hence the point & shoot.
Unless they use the front sight from a MKII, and the Champion from my Gold Cup on the rear, putting real sights on a handgun in no way makes it less functional. No aftermarket sight I have ever bought needed to be dehorned. If it did they would still be in the store.

[tombogan03884]

Boy, I hope they will do a retrofit!!!!
The trigger on the LCP sucks. I can make it work but it still sucks attorney balls.
Why Ruger thought that a 1/2 pound gun needed a trigger pull weight anywhere from 10-16 TIMES that is beyond me. I note that your post said nothing of reducing the weight of pull, only length. I hope they do both!

And with those sights what other choice do you have?  Yes, they can be accurate...they are also slow as $#!+ to use, hence the point & shoot.
Unless they use the front sight from a MKII, and the Champion from my Gold Cup on the rear, putting real sights on a handgun in no way makes it less functional. No aftermarket sight I have ever bought needed to be dehorned. If it did they would still be in the store.

You'll shoot your nuts off Ralphie . 
As M58 mentioned, the long crappy trigger pull is why you can safely pocket carry with no other safety.
As for the sights, if you want a target pistol get one in a caliber that will carry further than across a room.
Those usually already have real sights.

Any other thoughts on this?

I think you are right.

[MikeBjerum]

For everything they are trying to make the pocket gun into I already have in the 1911 on my hip.  If I need to hit a banger at 60 yards, I can do it with precision with the 1911 and even call the shot.  However, in the close up reflex fight pocket guns are used for, I like my old LCP.  It took some getting used to, but it does the job better than many guns.

[kmitch200]

You'll shoot your nuts off Ralphie . 
As M58 mentioned, the long crappy trigger pull is why you can safely pocket carry with no other safety.
As for the sights, if you want a target pistol get one in a caliber that will carry further than across a room.
Those usually already have real sights.

So the j frame I used to pocket carry, w/o a holster, needed a shitty trigger that was 10 times the weight of the gun?
Wow. Who knew?
And a set of real sights does not a target pistol make...that's an apples/Buicks comparison.

For everything they are trying to make the pocket gun into I already have in the 1911 on my hip.

I bet it weighs a tad more than 9 oz.
Just because the LCP is a small lightweight gun shouldn't mean we have to give up sights and a decent trigger.

[Sponsor]

[MikeBjerum]

k, The sights on the original LCP are more accurate than the .380acp is out of that short barrel.  Put a touch of white on those sights and you'll be amazed how easy they are to use.  However, I've never needed them, because in defensive simulated training and practice this gun point shoots great.

Carrying a gun in the pocket without a holster is an area I won't even debate 

[tombogan03884]

With a barrel only twice the length of the cartridge what do you need sights for at all ?
It's intended for arms length range, jam it against the attacker and pull the trigger.

[MikeBjerum]

It's not even twice the length!

Total barrel is 2.767 minus .973 cartridge oal = 1.794 effective barrel length or 1.844 times the cartridge oal.

Not to mention the sight radius is only four inches.

This is the modern day derringer.

[kmitch200]

I like to aim at what I'm shooting at if possible.
Raising the height of the front sight from a small pimple to even 5/32"(approx) like a j frame, would hardly make the gun awkward. Speaking of j frames, they usually have a barrel that is less than 2", yet exhibition shooters make hits on steel at ranges that would be better served by a carbine. Short sight radius doesn't mean less accurate - it just means harder to be accurate.

What a weapons intended use is and what its real world use is can be two different things. That 'arms length' gun may become the 'across the street' gun if it's the only one you have and things go seriously sideways.