I have the old model lc9 and an xds. Close to the same size on paper, the lc9 carries way smaller. I can easily pocket carry the lc9. The xds not so much. I carry the xds on a belt holster. If I pocket carry, the lc9 gets the nod.

With the Pro the only "gripe" I have about the gun is the thinness of the grip. I have the regular LC9S received from Ruger and it's a lot better than I imagined it would be, but it's taken me some time to adjust to the relative lack of thickness with its grip. Probably because of my ingrained "2x4" Glock bias I already have this issue with many poly single stacks as it is, but the Ruger bugged me even more than the other popular, svelte poly 9, the M&P Shield. People who see just how small my mitts are don't get my anti-small bias, but there it is with the Ruger.

That being said, it turns out I can shoot my LC9S pretty well. The striker redo improves the gun A LOT over the older hammer gun, especially with the earlier trigger break, though I do wish the reset were still quicker. If Ruger had instead offered me the Pro, given what I've experienced with the safety version I would take that on in a heartbeat. I don't gravitate to thumb safeties as a rule, and I certainly don't need a stupid mag disconnect. Still, my LC9S has been something of an eye opener.

There are a slew of solid single stack 9s out in the wild. I still prefer the G43 over the LC9S despite the lack of capacity from the factory. And then there's the PPS M2 whose size and heft is--in hand--the best of the bunch to me. I can if pressed pocket carry the Glock with the 6rd flush mag, but the footprint of the other two are a bit much for my usual jeans and slacks pockets. None of the three are what I call perfect, but for me the Walther is physically the most ideal.

Downside has been the trigger on my PPS M2. From my time at work, I've found that this design has a wider-than-normal (for a striker design) range of trigger quality and unfortunately my example has been towards the bottom of that spread. It's incrementally getting smoother with live fire and lots of snap cap action, but this has been time consuming and quite annoying, especially the dry firing exercises. I can think of countless other things that I'd rather do instead. But all that grousing aside, I'd still take its relatively short action and reset over the silky smooth trigger of my LC9S; these are defensive arms first and foremost and when it comes to triggers, short beats long travel every time if I need to squeeze off a double or even triple-tap at a very, very bad guy at typical engagement distances. A trigger that augments pinpoint shooting would be a nicety in this context, but definitely not a necessity.

I own and have owned other polymer single stacks, and have shot still others. I'd include the Shield in the mix, especially the 2.0 version. My first generation 709 Slim has been remarkably trouble-free, which should not be the case if all of the internet chatter about Taurus is to be consider gospel. Ironically however it's this 709 that convinced me that I don't really "like" skinny, single stack polymer 9mm pistols, and the reason why I never bought the S&W. With my past experiences I wouldn't have even owned the Ruger had they not given it to me. But then how the Ruger shoots has me reconsidering...

Good times, no matter what direction you move in.