- Thread starter
- #161
I
I looked at the LCP II and honestly it didn’t make much sense to me, it’s a slightly better range gun, but also slightly worse carry gun. Same round, same mag capacity, slightly larger. My absolutely most favorite thing about LCP is just how extremely pocketable it is, while being still relatively easy to shoot. For me at least. So making it larger in exchange for better sights and better trigger is not the trade-off I would personally be willing to make, but then I don’t find either the sights or the trigger especially bad (considering its purpose).
Ruger also did away with the original LCP’s “half cocked” hammer. The original LCP still has some hammer travel left to the fully cocked position even when the slide is racked, which can only be completed by pulling the trigger. The LCP II has a fully cocked hammer when the slide is racked. Most likely this is to improve the trigger feel. In theory, this makes LCP II more likely to have an accidental discharge via the hammer falling on the round if the hammer sear fails, although I’d be the first one to say that it’s very unlikely to happen. They did add a Glock-style trigger doohickey, FWIW.
To me this looks like LCP II was Ruger’s attempt to please all the people complaining about the original LCP being a less-than-stellar range gun, which it was never intended to be in the first place.
But, that’s just my very personal opinion.
Well sir, I can tell you this very detailed and astute post of yours was great! I absolutely agree with every single detail in the differences and why’s between the original LCP and the LCP II. Very accurate assessment.
This awesome post of yours makes me regret getting rid of those original LCP’s, hurt just a bit more…. Thanks partner!
. Great post!