Ruger EC9s The Budget Single Stack 9mm

Joined
Jan 19, 2015
Messages
97
Likes
44
Location
Southcoast, MA
Feedback: 0 / 0 / 0
While the LC9s is a great pistol and was better than the previous LC9, the newest edition to Ruger's single stack pistol line up the EC9s is a bargain and a half. The msrp of this pistol is $299 while the street price is around $219. At $219 that's Taurus territory and you'e getting Ruger quality. The main differences between this and the LC9s that make it cheaper is the fact the the sights are machined into the slide and the slide itself has a black oxide finish as where as the LC9s is blued. For someone on a budget this would be the perfect single stack carry gun.

Ruger® EC9s™ * Centerfire Pistol Models
 
Last edited:
With the conceal carry market constantly growing, single stack 9s become more important in the discussion. Unless you have a reputation like Glock, the low price will always get the attention. This one is a winner.
 
I have to ask myself if I want the EC9s for the low price or if for $80 more the ability to put on fiber optic sights or tritium sights is worth it.

I really don't know. For 10 yards, the sights work fine, but at 25 yards, I feel I'd rather have the higher visibility sights.
 
For a small carry gun like this it’s going to be hard to justify having to use it @ 25 yards. Point and shoot at bad breath distance is what this gun is built for.
 
For a small carry gun like this it’s going to be hard to justify having to use it @ 25 yards. Point and shoot at bad breath distance is what this gun is built for.
I don't see myself ever changing out the stock sights on my lc9s. If I didn't already have an lc9s I would be interested in one of these for sure. On revolvers I rather like the simplicity of fixed sights machined into the frame and barrel.
 
For a small carry gun like this it’s going to be hard to justify having to use it @ 25 yards. Point and shoot at bad breath distance is what this gun is built for.
I'm so tired of this line of thought for every concealed carry pistol. It's like every pistol is only meant for 3 to 4 yard distances. If that's the case, I'd rather have a .380.

I'll agree that 25 yards is stretching it, maybe 15 is more reasonable. For that, sure, it sounds good to me.
 
I'm so tired of this line of thought for every concealed carry pistol. It's like every pistol is only meant for 3 to 4 yard distances. If that's the case, I'd rather have a .380.

I'll agree that 25 yards is stretching it, maybe 15 is more reasonable. For that, sure, it sounds good to me.

Don't most defensive shootings occur within 5-7 yards? I think that's why there is the emphasis on those distances. It seems to me like the energy differential between 380 and 9 at 4 yards is pretty darn close to their energy differential at 15 yards, if you are fine with that energy level then why not just to with a380?
 
Don't most defensive shootings occur within 5-7 yards? I think that's why there is the emphasis on those distances. It seems to me like the energy differential between 380 and 9 at 4 yards is pretty darn close to their energy differential at 15 yards, if you are fine with that energy level then why not just to with a380?
Because I'd rather have the extra power of 9mm, but I don't see the point of a larger pistol at those distances when a smaller one is easier to carry and just as effective.
 
Does anyone have experience with those bright, glow in the dark sight paints? Unless they work great I wouldn't use paint on dovetailed sights, but if the sights are not removable it might be an improvement.
 
This is a cheap gun. Mostly intended for point and shoot close up.

You can spend a few more bucks and get a fiber optic front sight on a Springfield Armory handgun, or Sig puts nice tritium night sights on most of their stuff.


I'm so tired of this line of thought for every concealed carry pistol. It's like every pistol is only meant for 3 to 4 yard distances. If that's the case, I'd rather have a .380.

I'll agree that 25 yards is stretching it, maybe 15 is more reasonable. For that, sure, it sounds good to me.
 
This is a cheap gun. Mostly intended for point and shoot close up.
Exactly. It's not a competition gun. Fixing the sights is a minuscule sacrifice to bring the cost down 25%. Ruger is clearly targeting the budget-minded. For that price, you're getting a hell of a lot of gun.
 
Exactly. It's not a competition gun. Fixing the sights is a minuscule sacrifice to bring the cost down 25%. Ruger is clearly targeting the budget-minded. For that price, you're getting a hell of a lot of gun.

My thoughts exactly. How many people are even changing the sights on their LC9s? Night sights aren't cheap, if you're looking to spend a couple hundred you aren't going to pay another hundred to have someone put night sights on it.
 
My thoughts exactly. How many people are even changing the sights on their LC9s? Night sights aren't cheap, if you're looking to spend a couple hundred you aren't going to pay another hundred to have someone put night sights on it.
I guess that's true. Probably be better off buying a laser/light combo for that extra $100 instead.
 
I bought my LC9s as a Summer carry gun a couple years ago. I've now crossed off the Summer part and just carry this all the time. It isn't much bigger than my old BG380, and still disappears in a pocket, it's super comfortable IWB and is OK clipped into a boot. It isn't a target gun, but then again I'm not a target shooter, either. I can keep it on paper offhand at 25 yards, and get 3 - 4" groups at 10 - 15 yards.
For this price, I'm tempted to get one just so I've got a spare. The features that you lose to reduce the price aren't bad, a second magazine would be great, but again, for the price this is a winner.
 
Back
Top Bottom