I have previously bickered about the new "it" items that the gun magazines all love. During the Assault Weapon ban, since the "Wonder Nines" were cut to only carrying 10 rounds, the 45 ACP was in vogue and Para-Ordinance was the darling. Then it was Kimber, then the Springfield XD, and now it is the Ruger LCP.
The LCP stands for Lightweight Compact Pistol and currently comes in 380 Auto. It is a tiny gun, weighing in at 8.4 oz, unloaded. Its overall length is listed a 5.2 inches with height f 3.7 inches, and 0.8 inches wide. It comes with a 2.75 inch barrel. The little bugger hold 6+1 rounds. I am sure it is a fine little, gun, as are all Rugers, but seriously... ! Every major gun rag is carrying an article about it this month.
Most of the authors of these articles mention how similar it is to the Kel Tec P3AT. They have the same basic dimensions, almost the same weight (the Ruger weighs just a tad more), almost identical trigger pulls, and frankly if you has one side by side without any markings, I doubt you could tell them apart. They use the same glass-filled nylon frame composition, similar springs, hammers, and even the locked breech mechanism. They have the exact same take down procedures. The differences are that the Ruger has a Glock-style extractor and a external slide stop.
So, then, why is the Ruger getting all this publicity for a copy of a pistol that has been around for about 4 years now? Because then have nothing else to talk about.
The June 2008 edition of Gun Tests Magazine tells you on page 23, "Unfortunately, we had a persistent problem the Ruger LCP in the form of failures to feed. This happened with all three type of ammunition, and usually right after the third shot from a full magazine." Drop back to page 19 of the same issue and Gun Tests gives the gun a grade of A-, and on page 14, in another test with this exact same gun, "Throughout our tests we suffered no malfunctions." HUH? Guns and Ammo stated they had no malfunctions, and Gunblast.com only had one failure to feed. I would assume that a simple blowback pistol should be fairly reliable.
My point though, is that this is not the first of the tiny pistols. It is not the smallest. It is not the lightest. Nothing on this gun hasn't been done in earlier guns. It is not remarkable in reliability, appearance, capacity, or anything else. Yes, it is Rugers first foray into small guns, but why is this so pushed by all the sources?
