Question about the Ruger PC9

[Mandy]

I’ve been eyeing the Ruger PC9 and want to hear what folks think. Any quirks or things to watch out for?

 

[WAYNO]

PC9 or PCC ?
The PC9 hasn't been made for 20 years.
I very much like them both and have owned multiples of both.
The PC9 has no parts available from Ruger. The PCC, being recent manufacture, of course has factory support.

Both guns, in my experience, have ran perfectly, are surprisingly accurate, have little recoil, and they run clean.
They are both winners.

I would recommend the PCC to somebody I cared about. The PC9, not so much, unless I know they can competently make repairs, and fabricate parts if necessary.





.

 

[MisterEd]

PC9 or PCC ?

Good point however I will comment on the PCC since I have one.

Overall a great shooter, EXTREMELY accurate with it's original sights well made and very easy to disassemble and clean however there are a couple things I find a bit odd and COULD have been addressed and possibly resolved during design and manufacture.

First is the oversize 'mag well' on the stock however part of this is due to the replaceable magazine adapters for the Glock or Ruger mags. More of an 'aesthetic' thing than anything else.

Next IS mag related and that is of the mags fitting somewhat 'loosely' in the mag adapter and they will move forward and backward about a 1/8" or so. No cycling issues but it is a little irritating (especially with longer mags) however a quick fix was to cut and stick a piece of self sticking Velcro (the soft 'loop' side) about an 1" long on the front of the mag where it aligns with the mag adapter and this solved the problem.

Next is something that came up later is the ejected shells striking the forward edge of the ejection port and have slightly 'dented' it and removed the finish. Again NO cycling issues however apparently this is a common issue with not only the Ruger PCC but others as well. The brass is NOT getting dented or damaged and is ejecting consistently. I contacted Ruger a few years ago about this but because it was over two years old I would have to cover shipping. They DID offer to cover $30.00 of the shipping but life and other issues got in the way and I really didn't want to deal with shipping hassles so I did not pursue it.

Last is the removable barrel. Very easy to remove and reinstall, a nice adjustment feature to adjust the 'snugness' to the receiver and it helps with cleaning and storing or transport of the rifle. However it has been discussed before 'breakdown' style rifles where the BARREL separates from the receiver can have problems with sights and optics, SPECIFICALLY with maintaining zero if the barrel is removed and reinstalled OR even if the barrel is left installed simply due to what can be minimal movement - which is ONE reason the stock sights are installed ON the barrel.

Ok, so as a test I mounted a scope on mine and tried to sight it in and did NOT have good results. Inconsistent patterns and inability to get a good group. As a double check I tried a DIFFERENT scope and got the same results. NOW with the stock peep sights it is a TACK DRIVER and is incredibly accurate. I get ragged one hole groups at 50 yards and can still hit fairly small targets at a 100 or more yards - with good loads and bullets that is. I don't believe the PCC is going to be much good with a scope however with the effective range 9mm scopes are not really necessary and the stock peep sights, or maybe an optic like a 'dot' style might be the best thing.

Bottom line? None of these issues are 'deal breakers' and I really like the PCC and would highly recommend it to anyone who is wanting a PCC in a traditional stocked style.

However as an 'afterthought' IF the Henry Homesteader had been available when I got the PCC I would have no doubt taken a 'hard look' at it before deciding on what to get.