[dom1104]

Is this normal?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0h3tz4pAF0

Guy shoots 500 +P 38s out of his LCR, and the aluminum suffers.


Is this the norm? do gun companies expect us not to shoot our guns?

Would this happen on any other aluminum framed snub? I was in the market for a 642, but if this is indicative of the strength of j-frame style revolvers maybe the all steel versions would be better for someone who actually likes to shoot his guns. I dont care for the LCR much on a good day but this writes it right out of my want list for sure.

Or a Sp101 maybe. They look pretty sturdy.

Have you guys experianced this?

[highorder]

Interesting.

In the comments section, someone mentions a steel blast shield like the alloy S&W's have. Can any LCR owners confirm this shield on their gun, along with serial number information?

[Jermz1987]

I posted this video before and got caught some flak for apparently spreading bad rumors. Personally I know 3 people who own the LCR and they haven't had these problems.....yet. I like the LCR and hope to own one someday. It might of been something with his particular LCR.

[1911Tuner]

As was pointed out just this morning in another LCR thread...endshake...those little guns weren't meant to be used as range beaters or target guns. They're designed to be carried and used in an emergency. 500 rounds is a pretty fanciful amount of shooting for a gun that has a life expectancy of about a thousand rounds.

Smith & Wesson once marketed an airweight version of their Chief's Special. It was a fine little revolver, but it wasn't intended for hard use. The frames could be stretched into unserviceability with 50 or 60 rounds of +P ammunition. That doesn't mean that they were junk. It just means that the buyers were pressing the guns into a role that they were never intended to fill. Same goes for the Ruger LCRs.

The old adage:

"Carried a lot and seldom shot" should be roll-marked on the frames.

[dom1104]

ok thanks 1911Tuner, that was what I was wondering, I understand if thats the purpose of the guns.

So they really ARE designed not to last.

Thats.. dissapointing, I guess I expected them to last longer.

in that case, I think I will opt for the sp101 and deal with the extra weight.

Am I correct in assuming that the sp101 is more.. robust? Its twice the weight almost and made of steel...

[highorder]

Am I correct in assuming that the sp101 is more.. robust? Its twice the weight almost and made of steel...

Yeah, that's a safe assumption. :)

[harmon rabb]

makes me feel better about buying a smith 442 instead of a lcr :D

[dom1104]

1911Tuner I read your other post in that other thread just now.

Dont you think that for those of us new to j frames, that the company should make it more... obvious that this 'class' of gun needs to be treated differently?

I mean, shouldnt S&W say something to the tune of "Do not shoot more than 100 rounds a year out of this gun if you plan on keeping it 10 years."

Seriously. maybe its just me but I am dissapointed in the whole class of firearm if this is really the case. Which I dont doubt you one bit.

[1911Tuner]

Dont you think that for those of us new to j frames, that the company should make it more... obvious that this 'class' of gun needs to be treated differently?

I agree that they should make a clearer distinction between guns with aluminum alloy frames and steel frames, but there is an assumption that they buyers should at least consider the fact that such guns aren't going to be as durable as a similar steel-framed gun.

Back in the day, Smith & Wesson cautioned that the guns should not only be fired a very limited amount with +P and not with +P+ at all...and Colt issued a similar warning with their aluminum D- framed revolvers, which were more robust than Smith's J-frames. Colt even cautioned against +P use in their steel D-Frames.

Even the Steel Smith Model 36 isn't going to handle as much use as their K-frame, which is roughly equivalent to Colt's D-framed Detective Special and .38 Diamondback. These guns were designed and intended to be carried and used in an emergency...period. The layman named'em belly guns, because they were most often used as a last-ditch self-defense effort by literally pressing the muzzle against an attacker's belly and letting rip.

There's nothing wrong with the new age belly guns, other than the fact that they're only a little stronger than their ancestors...if at all. The fill a specific niche, and they do it well. They're not, however, general-purpose shooters. We don't use a surgeon's scalpel to butcher a side of beef. Neither do we use lightly-built belly guns for a Sunday afternoon plinking session.

[ArmedBear]

There ain't no such thing as a free lunch.:)

Some people do put a good number of rounds through Airweights, though, without any trouble. I even load up special light loads that are pleasant in a 642.

But I generally use a Model 60 .357 if I want to plink with a snubbie...

[rcmodel]

The fill a specific niche, and they do it well. They're not, however, general-purpose shooters.How true.

It never ceases to amaze me how many new gun owners buy something like a Kel-Tec P3AT as a range gun.

Then bitch on KTOG because the gun didn't come with target sights, a 3 pound trigger, and hurts their hand when they shoot 300 rounds in one range session.

Good grief!
Give me a break! :rolleyes:

rc

[dom1104]

Thanks guys, I do appreciate it. Great answers and really cleared that up for me.

rcmodel I hear ya, and yeah the p3at I have always understood is lightly built.

Its also very low cost and even LOOKS cheaply made. The J-frames on the other hand really do feel well built.

I guess I always assumed that revolvers that can handle 357 class cartridges were more, robust.

I do understand their limitations now and thank you very much gentlemen.

[Chuck Perry]

Sorry, but I don't find 500 rounds to be an acceptable life period for a gun. The LCR is touted as +P rated; it should be able to withstand this amount of use. 5,000 rounds? Ok, I'll maybe give you that one. But not 10 boxes of ammo.

[rcmodel]

You have to understand that flame-cutting isn't the end of the world for a revolver.

It is pretty much self-limiting after the initial cosmetic blemish happens.

For instance, I have never seen flame-cutting continue to cut clear through the top strap like an acetylene cutting torch.

rc

[fishinbill85]

I have one and I like it for what it IS....A concealable firearm for protection. If I shoot it at the range it's gonna be for "re-familiarization" and not as a plinker.

When I bought it I noticed the shake in the cylinder, but took into account that it's not a precision weapon like say.......a 686. It serves it's purpose and I'm confident It will last more than 500 rounds.

[ArmedBear]

Its also very low cost

It is? Around here, the price difference between an LCR and a J-frame isn't large enough to influence my purchasing decision.

rcmodel, while that may be true, if S&W takes serious heat for it, then so should Ruger.

When I bought it I noticed the shake in the cylinder, but took into account that it's not a precision weapon like say.......a 686.

Seriously, though, my 642 has the same level of fit and finish, accuracy and precision as my 686. For the money, so should the Ruger. People talk about the Ruger like it's a $250 gun. Maybe it should be, but it's not. A $430 gun should act like one.

[Headless]

Boggle. My 642 (which cost me 400$, i might add, and could be bought brand new, locally, for 449$ today) has eaten 3-4000 rounds at this point, about 2000-2500 of them +P rated, including 300 or so double tap +P 125gr. Granted, the finish on the gun is all beat to hell by now, but no rust and it locks up tight and has no signs of flame cutting.

I don't understand why ANYONE would consider a several hundred dollar firearm with a 1000 round lifespan an acceptable purchase, and that is exactly why companies aren't telling us their guns have a 1000 round lifespan. That would be ridiculous.

[ArmedBear]

I fully agree with Headless. Again, the Ruger isn't $250.

For all intents and purposes, it costs the same as a J-frame Airweight. It should meet the same standards.

[19-3Ben]

People talk about the Ruger like it's a $250 gun. Maybe it should be, but it's not. A $430 gun should act like one.

I'm usually Ruger's biggest shill. I go on and on about the wonders of their guns. But I have to agree with you on this one. I'm VERY disappointed to hear about this. I mean, Ruger's big selling point has always been that they build rock solid guns that will last through several generations of the worst abuse imaginable and still work like new.

So what gives here? I've also never heard people speaking about 1000 round limits on guns like S&W's 642, the direct competition to the LCR.
If it's true that a gun like the LCR is going to shoot 1000 rounds and then die, it's just not worth it when one could easily get a 642.

[1911Tuner]

Target wadcutter ammunition is an ideal practice round for the little aluminum-framed guns. I haven't seen any of that commercially available in years, so it may be a handload proposition. A 148-grain DEWC and 2.7 grains of Bullseye is about right.

Flame cutting isn;t the end-game, but it does weaken the topstrap, which accelerates stretching. Be aware of that.

The LCR is touted as +P rated; it should be able to withstand this amount of use

Rated for +P only means that it was proofed at some pressure above the SAAMI industry standard for .38 +P...once. That's one round fired and the gun didn't come unwrapped, and the headspace held. That's all it means.

Sorry, but I don't find 500 rounds to be an acceptable life period for a gun

Neither does "Life Expectancy" mean that the gun is goind to suddenly stop working at that round count. It means that you may need to think about sending the gun in for a checkup and a tuneup as you approach that level of use. Firing a gun is pretty abusive...no matter how you cut it. The higher the presure levels and recoil impulse...the more abusive it gets. A maintained Honda Civic will go 200,000 miles if driven normally. Try holding the engine at redline for a 500 mile road trip, and you probably won't get there. That's not the sort of thing that a Honda Civic is designed for.

It never ceases to amaze me how many new gun owners buy something like a Kel-Tec P3AT as a range gun.

Amen!

FWIW, I got my hands on one for the first time yesterday, and I liked it very much. For what it was intended to do, it's a great little revolver. It does have its limitations, though.

[stchman]

I personally do not believe the LCR was made to be a range revolver. It is polymer and aluminum.

I just recently purchased an LCP and seriously doubt I will put 500 rounds through it as long as I own it. Just a CCW pistol.

The LCR is meant to be a CCW type revolver lightweight and easily concealable. If the user wanted a range .38 revolver then the GP100 in all stainless would have been a far better choice. I doubt you could break the GP100 unless you took a hammer to it.

That being said if he calls Ruger they will fix or replace the revolver. Since his local gun shop gave him his money back no problem either. I do agree that the lifespan should be far more than 1000 rounds. I would figure that the lifespan of the LCR should be about 5-7000 rounds.

[KevininPa]

The SP101 was built for a steady diet of .357s. Even the S&W 66 I used to have wasn't really built for that. Now I have a 686 that is. I have a CZ75 Compact on consignment or trade for a SP101. Just biding my time till I get a bite or even a nibble. Even if I don't shoot or carry .357s all the time, it's good to know it's tough enough to do so.

[1911Tuner]

I would figure that the lifespan of the LCR should be about 5-7000 rounds.


And you could very well get that much use out of one...but I wouldn't bet on it. I've got a 681 Smith that has probably seen less than 3,000 rounds. Most of it has been nearly full power reloads with cast bullets. The L-frames were designed to digest a steady diet of honest-to-Elmer Keith .357 ammo...but even that one has started to loosen up a little. It's still completely serviceable, but it's not quite the same gun that it was 10 years ago. Nature of the beast. Shoot'em hard and they'll loosen up. No gettin' around that.

[Solitude]

" a gun that has a life expectancy of about a thousand rounds."

Please tell me where you got this information. I am very interested in your source. Thanks.

[1911Tuner]

Solitude...no source. Just a best WAG based on the size, weight, and construction of the gun. It also depends heavily on the ammunition. Low-pressure/recoil impulse=longer service life.

[Big Bill]

This thread if full of BS!!! It's absurd to think an LCR is only good for 1000 rounds. Just where the heck did you get that info about the LCR - Tuner? I think an LCR with proper care and ammo should last to be handed down to the next generation.

If you've got proof that one can only expect 1000 rounds out of an LCR, then let's see it. A failure with one gun isn't enough to make a blanket statement about them all.

[ArmedBear]

I think an LCR with proper care should last to be handed down to the next generation.

Why?

I mean, I have no reason not to think that, but I have no reason to think it, either. Ruger has no track record with aluminum frames in real calibers, and nobody has a track record with a gun designed like the LCR.

[Eightball]

I've fired my 638 a ton, but not too much with +P ammo.....simply because it can be mildly painful to shoot. Most of my practice rounds are some 148gr. LDEWC rounds (loaded a little hotter than 1911Tuner, but still a titch shy of where the barrel leads badly) in order to get in some practice with it, but a full box of 50 through it's well more than enough.

My L-frame 620, though, has held up wonderfully as a handloading testbed, with about 1/3 of the rounds being "close to the screamin' edge" .357 loads, with north of 1000 rounds through it trouble-free.

No flame cutting on either firearm. Sounds like a Ruger QC problem.

[1911Tuner]

Well, hey Bill. Buy one...go getcha a couple cases of +P stuff and shoot it. You might learn a little somethin' about small, alluminum-framed revolvers the way I did. That would be the hard way...

[Steve C]

I think the kid is worrying about nothing. Flame cutting doesn't cut deep enough to make the gun dangerous to shoot and eventually will stop. A good cleaning with solvent and brush would probably show that most of what he calls melted metal is just powder residue and perhaps a little heat discoloration on the cylinder.

If he thinks Ruger is going to provide him with a new pistol or refund he's not being very realistic.

[TexasBill]

I have a S&W M637 Airweight. Paid $449 for it; just a little more than an LCR. I have at least 500 rounds of mixed .38 Special and .38 Special +P through it without problem. +P probably isn't the best thing for it, which is okay with me because a box of +P through an Airweight will definitely leave you with a sore hand and some battered fingers. Too be honest, I have taken to carrying my 637 loaded with regular .38 Special Hornady Critical Defense. At the ranges I see using the little snub, that should be enough to do the job. When I want to carry a stronger load, I switch to my Model 60 with the 3-inch barrel. The extra weight really helps

The LCR weighs just 1.5 ounces less than the S&W Airweight. IMHO, that's not enough to make a real difference in a CCW. A Ruger SP101 with the 2.25-inch barrel weighs 25 ounces, 11.5 ounces more than the LCR. In a good holster, you can carry the SP101 all day long and have a more rugged weapon that's easier to control in an emergency, especially if you want to use more robust ammo.

[ArmedBear]

The Ruger's street price wasn't, and isn't, low enough to get me to be a guinea pig. However, for all those who want to be, please, get one and test it for us.

(I won't be buying the LCR-inspired Smith or Taurus revolvers any time soon, either. I have both S&W and Ruger revolvers, with no particular complaints about either.)

[Confederate]

I don't understand people who buy small, ultra-lightweight guns and then try to put a thousand rounds through them. The guns are simply not designed for range shooting, but, rather shooting five or six rounds per session to stay in practice. They're last-ditch guns meant for being carried, not shooting.

What really is disgusting about these ugly little pistols is that they're so frightfully expensive, some substantially more expensive than the S&W 686. The prices alone certainly would indicate a stronger frame and greater power, but the technology simply isn't there yet. And it's a joke to sell a $375 revolver for $800+! Still, there are always buyers.

[Cosmoline]

Any modern revolver should be able to take thousands of rounds of rated ammunition and still function. To carry without frequent shooting with your carry piece is ill-advised.

That said, this looks like some cosmetic abrasion. Problem flame cutting is actual cutting of the strap. And the guy moves the gun around too much to get a clear picture. I call shenanigans on the whole thing.

[ArmedBear]

Any modern revolver should be able to take thousands of rounds of rated ammunition and still function.

Right. That's why S&W quit making K-frame .357s (Model 66 and 19). A lot of aficionados loved the things, but the really didn't hold up when shot with enough "real" .357 Magnum. I'd like to get one, myself, but discontinuing them was, ultimately, the right thing to do.

[pezo]

I have no doubt that the LCR will easily withstand waaaay more than 1000 rounds of factory +p. I did read once that there is a "bearing" so to speak on the weapon that need lubing after x amount of rounds. Can any owners of one confirm that? Also because the Glock is of similar material construction, does that mean that it to is only good for about a 1000 rounds. There would be alot of angry police depts. .38+p does not generate that excessive of pressure.

[Big Bill]

Well, hey Bill. Buy one...go getcha a couple cases of +P stuff and shoot it.Tuner - LCR is a .38 Special. It's not designed for +P ammo. It's too bad it took you a case of ammo to figure that out - the hard way.I think an LCR with proper care should last to be handed down to the next generation.Why?

I mean, I have no reason not to think that, but I have no reason to think it, either. Ruger has no track record with aluminum frames in real calibers, and nobody has a track record with a gun designed like the LCR.Why? Because of the way it's built and the materials used to build it. That's why.

I have several Rugers that HAVE lasted a lifetime and will be handed down to the next generation. I see no reason to think that the LCR will be any less durable.

[fireside44]

As was pointed out just this morning in another LCR thread...endshake...those little guns weren't meant to be used as range beaters or target guns. They're designed to be carried and used in an emergency.

No offense to anyone, but this sounds eerily similar to the definition of a saturday night special.

I don't understand why these lightweight guns of inferior materials are becoming so popular. Is a steel snub really to heavy for some people to carry? I have a hard time believing it.

[pezo]

:confused: :scrutiny:

[w_houle]

I think it's funny... Here ya go, buy a one of these and save some money:neener:
It should last a few hundred rounds:rolleyes:
http://img59.imageshack.us/img59/9805/rohm1d.jpg

[Cosmoline]

No offense to anyone, but this sounds eerily similar to the definition of a saturday night special.

Nail on the head there. If Ruger or anyone else is making a sidearm that *CANNOT BE SHOT* on a regular basis without self-destruction, they need to go back to the drawing board. If you're practicing with one firearm and carrying a completely different one that's too delicate for "range work," you've got problems.

I have quick-clot pads that are for emergency use. I have flares, too. And bear spray. These are not for use on a regular basis. They may never be used. But no firearm should fall into that category. You have to practice early and often and it should be with the same gun you carry.

[gwnorth]

Right. That's why S&W quit making K-frame .357s (Model 66 and 19). A lot of aficionados loved the things, but the really didn't hold up when shot with enough "real" .357 Magnum. I'd like to get one, myself, but discontinuing them was, ultimately, the right thing to do.

What now? So you are comparing a 34+oz all steel K-frame to the durability of a polymer ultra light weight pocket gun? I know people with S&W 19's and other K-frames with many, many thousands of full house .357 rounds through them. The forcing cone on the k-frame does have a reputation for cracking if a lot (and by a lot, I mean considerably more than 500 rounds) of light weight bullet (less than 125gr) .357 loads were used. But the idea that a k-frame cannot stand up to a lifetime of regular shooting is just absurd, and the huge number of k-frames still in use is testimony to that fact.

Yes, the L-frame did enlarge the frame enough that they did not need to shave the forcing cone and thus avoids the very potential of the problem. But with proper bullet choice, a k-frame is one very long lived (and shot) and tough revolver.

Ruger LCR and a k-frame are two completely different classes of handgun.

P.S .357 K-frame = models 13, 19, 65, 66

I have a 3" 65-3 that I am not at all worried about putting .357s through (I only shoot 158gr JSP though, and load it with .38spl+p loads for SD).

[fireside44]

If Ruger or anyone else is making a sidearm that *CANNOT BE SHOT* on a regular basis without self-destruction, they need to go back to the drawing board. If you're practicing with one firearm and carrying a completely different one that's too delicate for "range work," you've got problems.

Well, reading the thread got me thinking about certain states that have laws barring the sale or possession of "saturday night specials" and I believe what they stipulate as a "saturday night special" is dependent upon the composition, quality, reliability, and accuracy of the weapon among other factors.

[phinfan]

I am new to this forum, and mostly lurk here, but felt I had to post after reading this thread. I am not the smartest guy in the world, but after reading some of these statements, wow I just do not know.

I am an LCR owner, decided to buy one "over" a nice model 37, and a 642. I would be lying if I said I had fired it yet, so I will not. What I did do, as anyone can, is read through about 1 year full of reviews on this firearm, all over the net.

There has been a few "flame cutting" issues, but to me it seemed like a very small small percentage. To be honest with you, I would not mind if my gun did this, as I have read Ruger replaced all those guns, and upgraded them with the CT grips.

Let me ask you something, does the claim that the LCR only has a 500 or so round life span even sound halfway correct??

If it is, I have read about range trips that used up all 100% of it's lifespan.

A Ruger engineer at it's debut at shot show last year said they had put one through a 10,000 rd +p test (which it passed by the way).

This almost sounds like the bull I used to here about Glock when it first came out. You hear of someone having a problem, and then the: you don't expect one of those plastic guns to be able to hold up do you?

Anyway, everyone else is coming out with one now to try and keep up with ruger (s&w, taurus), it's a real cool light gun with a GREAT da trigger, if you feel you must bash it, go ahead, it is a innovative firearm, that will probably open up a market for others to copy......as they look like they already have.

[Big Bill]

Thanks phin - your's is the most intelligent post in the entire thread.

[ArmedBear]

I see no reason to think that the LCR will be any less durable.

Long-chain organic compounds can break down just sitting there. That's one possible reason. You can't just look at plastic and decide how long it will last. You can't do that with an aluminum alloy, either.

Ruger's cast steel frames are made using completely different techniques, and completely different materials. There's absolutely no reason to believe that two guns that are so different are somehow the same just because they say "Ruger" on them.

Now, as I said, the LCR might last for generations. And it might not. I don't know. And you don't know, either.

What now? So you are comparing a 34+oz all steel K-frame to the durability of a polymer ultra light weight pocket gun?

No. That would be stupid. It wasn't any smarter to read that into my post, then go on about how K-frames don't break, except that they do. Read the post that I was responding to.

[Ed Ames]

Let me ask you something, does the claim that the LCR only has a 500 or so round life span even sound halfway correct??

500rd lifespan? No... but I'd expect it to show signs of heavy use after 500rds of +P. The thing with 10,000+ rd tests is that the engineers know just how much of that frame is actually needed and how much is safety margin, and it passes the test as long as the cut through and other wear doesn't take the gun within about 10% of the designed safety margin (or expand tolerances to safe max, etc). That doesn't mean it's as good as new after 10,000 rds..more likely that it's just this side of the scrap heap.

All guns have a lifespan. The main point of a revolver for a SD (especially backup) gun is that they are trustworthy with low round counts, unlike a semi-auto. They are not subject to feed problems, ejection problems, magazine issues, limp wristing, and sundry other failures that show up with semi-autos and require hundreds of rounds of your (probably expensive) carry ammo to find. That means instead of paying $400 for a gun and another $250-$500 for shake-out ammo, you can spend $400 on the gun and $50 on carry ammo. It also means you don't need to burn up a significant percentage of the gun's lifespan making sure it'll work. Verify it works, then do your practicing with a gun that isn't so completely optimized for deep concealment carry.

No offense to anyone, but this sounds eerily similar to the definition of a saturday night special.

No offense, but "saturday night special" is a term made up by people trying to deny low-income individuals their RKBA. It has no definition except "gun that a poor person can afford" and the standards used to proxy that are made up to target specific cheap guns (e.g. at one point it was based on the melting point of Zinc...then "Composite" came along and was expensive so that standard went out the window). It has nothing to do with reliability, materials, or anything else.

[hillbillydelux]

Wow. The fact is that all revolvers suffer to some extent from flame cutting. However as RC pointed out earlier they are usually cosmetic and self limiting. Magnums will actually wear faster than most but even the ultra low pressure .45 colt will show signs of flame cutting. All of my revolvers have little notches in the top strap but so far it hasnt hurt them in the least. If a little flame cutting bothers you then dont but a revolver.

[gwnorth]

No. That would be stupid. It wasn't any smarter to read that into my post, then go on about how K-frames don't break, except that they do. Read the post that I was responding to.

I did. You're response implies that a k-frame will somehow inherently break with moderate use of .357 loads. Having owned several and known others who also do, I know many a k-frames will stand up to countless rounds of .357 loads. A few have been known to break, but the vast majority do not, and the conditions of use that are likely to cause one to break are well known (so easily avoided). That same comment can be made about any gun make or model.

[Magnumite]

Typically the failures are of the J and K-frames go out of time or forcing cone in the barrel erodes and cracks from high volumes of magnum loads.

[John Wayne]

I would never buy a gun that had a "life expectancy" of 1,000 rounds, and I do not think any reputable manufacturer should ever let something like that hit the market.

I understand that lightweight alloy-framed ultra-compact guns in full-size calibers do not take the same beating or last as long as their full-size all-steel counterparts, but 1,000 rounds isn't even enough to familiarize yourself with the gun or verify that it's reliable!

I am very glad I did not buy an LCR. When I was in the market for a compact .38, my local shop did not have one in so I bought the SW 442 instead. I have been very pleased with it, the action has smoothed out considerably and it is as tight as ever after over 1,000 rounds. I usually shoot a handload of 125 gr. LRN over 3.0 gr. Trail Boss (50-100 rounds per range session), then shoot 2 cylinders of +P 158 gr. JHPs chrono'd at 800 fps. Keep in mind this is 1k rounds in less than a year, and the only signs of wear are a little holster wear and where some of the anodizing has worn off the area around the recoil shield.

Why fault people who want to shoot 300 rounds through a compact gun? Many people have limited range time, and when they get to go they have to pay to use the facilities. It is understandable to want as much practice as possible within that time span.

[Ed Ames]

but 1,000 rounds isn't even enough to familiarize yourself with the gun or verify that it's reliable!

If you can't verify a revolver is reliable in 25rds you are doing it wrong. Hell, if you can't test most of what needs testing with a pencil and a dollar bill you're doing it wrong.

That said, nobody in this thread has said that the LCR won't last 1000 rds of normal practice. I would guess they'll last through a million rounds of practice ammo, if you choose the right practice ammo.


+P going through paper does nothing these won't:
http://www.speer-bullets.com/images/Product/PlasticTrainingBullets.jpg

[Headless]

I don't think practicing with plastic bullets is quite the same quality of training as live fire with the same ammunition you carry. If they don't shoot the same, you may in fact learn some very bad habits mucking around with that. I fire 100 rounds a month from my 642 to stay sharp with it. That lets me hit tennis balls 4 of 5 times out to about 20 yards. I don't think snap caps, pencils and plastic bullets are going to do that for me. Face it, a gun that can't handle 1000 rounds before giving up the ghost is a complete POS and should not be for sale, much less for sale for 400$+.

[dom1104]

Big Bill - LCR is a .38 Special. It's not designed for +P ammo. It's too bad it took you a case of ammo to figure that out - the hard way.


Is this even true? I was sure it was 38+p.

And yeah, I wont be buying one. I took at a look at one today, side by side with a 442 and a 642 and a sp101.

The 101 is definatly too heavy for pocket, but the LCR is out for me. Just too many questions, and doesnt have the classic feel of the S&W.

I agree. if it was 299 or something, that would be a little different. It just doesnt seem... "Worth" $489.

Anyhow, besides the fighting, this thread has been very informative.

I asked the gunsmith if he had ever heard of this happening before, he said he had experianced it, and his advice mirrored 1911Tuners.

[Ed Ames]

I don't think practicing with plastic bullets is quite the same quality of training as live fire with the same ammunition you carry

Ummm...okay?

A long time ago I had a chance to shoot a S&W model 37. That's one of the original ultra-light airweights, about 12oz of .38sp. I was at an outdoor range that had a target frame at about 7 yards and a set of metal gongs set up on the berm, at about 70 yards.

I fired a cylinder load at the paper 7 yards out.

I reloaded, and fired at the gong. *clank*
*clank*
*nothing*
*clank*
*clank*

I reloaded... *clank*
*clank*
*clank*
*nothing*
*clank*

(yeah, I was aiming for the top and probably hitting the bottom.)

All of that done at the max rate of fire allowed by the range. It really pissed off the guy with a Ruger semi-auto at the next bench, and surprised the "that thing can't hit the broad side of a barn" owner.

You know how many times I had fired one of those guns before? How many rounds of practice it took to reach that point?

Well, in all honesty, probably 15,000 rounds... mostly of .177 pellets from a CO2 pellet revolver, with much of the balance was from a target-grade .22LR pistol. I had never fired a J-Frame before. Oh, I'd fired a few centerfire handguns before that point, but I'd probably fired more rounds from a cap&ball revolver than from any centerfire revolver.

Get your practice where you can. Guns is guns and people make too big a deal about the differences.

[Chuck Perry]

Rated for +P only means that it was proofed at some pressure above the SAAMI industry standard for .38 +P...once. That's one round fired and the gun didn't come unwrapped, and the headspace held. That's all it means.


I thought proof loads, traditionally, are tested at very high pressures to insure a margin of safety should there be an ammo problem. Say double that which the chambered round is rated at. The factory's test the design with one of these to "proof" the gun. To my understanding a gun rated for +P means just that- it is safe to repeatedly fire +P loads.

Neither does "Life Expectancy" mean that the gun is going to suddenly stop working at that round count. It means that you may need to think about sending the gun in for a checkup and a tuneup as you approach that level of use. Firing a gun is pretty abusive...no matter how you cut it. The higher the presure levels and recoil impulse...the more abusive it gets. A maintained Honda Civic will go 200,000 miles if driven normally. Try holding the engine at redline for a 500 mile road trip, and you probably won't get there. That's not the sort of thing that a Honda Civic is designed for.


My Speer manual quotes SAAMI specs of 17,000PSI for standard 38 Special and 18,500PSI for +P. The 357 Magnum is listed as a SAAMI maximum of 35,000PSI. An increase of 1,500PSI doesn't really scream "red line" performance to me. Honestly, if the gun is going to need a trip back to the factory after 500 +P rounds, it sounds like the same thing would be necessary for less than a 1,000 standard pressure rounds!

[phinfan]

Some final points:

I do not think anyone buys a LCR, or a 642 or any ccw firearm for "target" use. That is not to say that some cannot be fairly accurate, but not exactly what you would pick for target applications.

In the manual it states that the hammer, and hammer pivot pin must be lubricated every 1000 rds, do you think that is just a typo?

Attention LCR owners, do not lubricate after 1000 rds, throw out, and buy a new one!

If you took the time to read the many personal accounts of the LCR on the web, you would find 9 out of 10 were very positive, with some having already put more than 1000 rds through them in the first year.


There was a thread started on this forum by NoleMan (which I used as a reason to buy) in which he said American Rifleman also did a 10,000 rd +P test on it, and it still looked good shot straight, and locked up tight, you can read it yourself. Kind of a far cry from being a 500-1000 rd gun I think.

http://www.thehighroad.org/showthread.php?t=472455

[Headless]

You know how many times I had fired one of those guns before? How many rounds of practice it took to reach that point?

Well, in all honesty, probably 15,000 rounds... mostly of .177 pellets from a CO2 pellet revolver, with much of the balance was from a target-grade .22LR pistol. I had never fired a J-Frame before. Oh, I'd fired a few centerfire handguns before that point, but I'd probably fired more rounds from a cap&ball revolver than from any centerfire revolver.

Get your practice where you can. Guns is guns and people make too big a deal about the differences.


Practicing with cheap ammo (i use a .22 pistol) is certainly useful, and I would never discount it's value - after all, the vast majority of what you learn when target shooting is sight picture and trigger control, and you can learn those easily on a .22 or pellet gun. In fact, it's easier on lower recoiling guns because you can see where you are messing up without having to deal with the flash/bang/recoil of a large caliber. However, firing a pellet gun doesn't teach the necessary skills to rapid fire a heavy recoil .38 snub revolver and remain accurate. These are mostly point shooting skills past the first shot, and dealing with the recoil and firing accurately isn't something that you learn with a .177 cal air pistol.

It's true, the first time I picked my revolver up i did 'fine' with it, slow fire, at the range; after all, I had plenty of experience firing handguns by then - but I don't consider that realistic training and I wouldn't feel prepared to defend myself if i'd only shot my revolver 50 times, even if I had shot another gun 25,000 times (which is exactly the situation I was in when I bought my revolver). Maybe this is simply a failing of my skills, but my revolver shoots very differently than my other guns and if i get too used to shooting another pistol, I lose the 'feel' for my revolver. If you can pick up any gun, loaded with any ammo, and shoot it accurately the first time you touch it, rapid fire (what was the 'legal limit' on how fast you could fire that model 37 anyway?), then you have a gift that should not be squandered.

Hitting a gong at 70yards is fine, but do you think you could have emptied 5 rounds in 3 seconds and hit a tennis ball with 3 of those rounds, even as it was rolling from the first at 15 yards that day? Without any experience shooting a heavy recoiling pistol? Realistically, this isn't something that is learned through firing a low recoil weapon. I think that firing plastic bullets is likely to make you shoot to a different point of aim unless you are lucky enough to find a plastic bullet load that hits to the same POA as your carry load. Believe it or not, I've tried the plastic training loads and I didn't find that they shot to the same POA as my carry load (which is doubletap +P 125gr)

[Ed Ames]

I think that firing plastic bullets is likely to make you shoot to a different point of aim unless you are lucky enough to find a plastic bullet load that hits to the same POA as your carry load.

I'll just address this because the answer will be the most helpful.

The goal is smoothness and control. Smooth is fast and all that. So your target needs a point of aim for you to aim at.

The projectiles don't need to hit the point of aim. Not even close. There is no training benefit to POI matching POA. Arguably there is a disadvantage because you'll need to replace your bull more often if you shoot it up. Much cheaper to replace a blank sheet of paper, and cheaper means you'll do it more often, which means you'll keep better track of your results.

The projectiles need to group consistently. The fact that they group consistently 12" low relative to another loading is utterly irrelevant. Place your bull, concentrate on smoothness, and measure your groups.

There is a HUGE training benefit to being able to do something every day, cheaply, without wearing out either yourself or your tools. Correct repetition leads to smoothness. Those plastic bullets allow you to practice at home if you have a basement or you aren't on top of your neighbors, which means you can practice year round, every day, with your actual trigger and grip and sights, which gives you the feel for your actual gun and means you will be far more prepared for your relatively infrequent range trips and even more infrequent actual moments of need. It's not the only sort of training you need...but unless you have daily access to a range you'll get more actual training value from a box of those and 1000 primers than 1000 rounds of expensive SD ammo.

As for whether I could keep a ball moving... frankly, given that hitting anywhere near a tennis ball with a decently powerful round will cause a ball to jump just from dirt hitting it, I don't really know. I'm sure you would do much better than me (and I'm not being factitious) but sadly I don't have the opportunity to shoot at any place that would allow that so that's kinda natural.

[Headless]

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on this one, Ed. I don't see training with a weapon that shoots 12" off from your real load as advantageous.

When I am shooting, i'm trying to get a feel for exactly where the bullet will go every time I fire the gun, using the sights or not. Throwing in a bunch of projectiles that act totally differently than my actual carry load just confuses the issue. I've got trigger control, sight picture down already. If i have time to target shoot at the BG, then i'll do just that, i suppose. Groups are good.

But this isn't about slow fire target shooting, which is why I find it interesting that the only point you responded to of mine was in regards to just that.

I'm not disputing that training with a low recoil cheap alternative isn't valuable, nor that daily practice is valuable. But, in my view, if you train yourself constantly to shoot with the sights and expect your shots to hit 12" low, then under stress, when you revert to your training, you're likely to either fixate on a sight picture (because you rely on it to know where you will hit), slowing you down, or you'll start shooting 12 inches high because that's the natural feel you've cultivated. Especially if your every day of training for a year was with low power plastic bullets and you've only got 100 rounds through the gun with the REAL point of impact/aim matched up. This comes into play especially considering in a self defense situation, I probably won't be using my sights, so won't be able to know for sure in any way OTHER than by 'feel' whether I am going to hit my target or not. You have good points about practicing, but my concern isn't about target shooting or learning sight picture or trigger control; this is beyond that point.

[Ed Ames]

Yep...no harm in different views.

I agree that this isn't about slow fire target shooting. I disagree that it's the only point I responded to. I wasn't talking about slow fire target shooting at all.

When I'm shooting, I'm aiming for smoothness and control. Smooth becomes fast, and control becomes accuracy. I never try to "chase the last hole" because that way lies madness. Repeatability means I can hit what I want. I don't have to see a bullet hole exactly where the sight picture was resting to know if I'm doing it right.

The result is that I can raise the gun and hit my target pretty quickly. Not competition quick maybe but under a second for an aimed shot. Aimed. And it's not as though I can only pull the trigger once every two seconds. The sights are there for a reason. I can think of no good excuse not to use them in the real world. I spent the time learning how to raise the gun to a correct sight picture, and how to shoot accurately with both eyes open, to give me the edge that sights offer. Honestly, not using the sights and controlling your shots is why cops constantly empty 17+ round magazines into the air around the person they are shooting at. I'd rather not follow their example. Bullets that miss are nothing but a liability.

Interestingly, I've found that I'm not too bad at snap shooting, but that's carnival tricks not real world.

And yeah, you revert to training. If your training is to watch for the last hole and try to correct for that, you'd better hope your attacker is wearing white.

[Cosmoline]

Is this even true? I was sure it was 38+p.

That was also my understanding. Any .38 Special revolver that is too delicate to fire .38 +p is either a rare antique or defective. This isn't a magnum-pressure round we're talking about.

+P going through paper does nothing these won't:

Of course it does. It bucks and tosses the revolver in your hand. It smacks you around. Learning to deal with that, esp. from a small wheelgun, is most of the challenge.

Nothing is wrong with shooting weak rounds to practice trigger control, aiming, etc. But it's not really giving you the whole experience.

Guns is guns and people make too big a deal about the differences.

Only at a very foundational level. I may be able to bullseye a squirrel's heart at fifty yards with my CZ death laser, but that same squirrel will laugh at me as I try to hit it from ten yards with my carry piece. In my experience small concealable handguns are the most difficult to shoot well and master. They're also the ones you're most likely to end up relying on in a pinch. Having one that's something of a delicate flower that you're afraid of shooting too much puts you at a serious disadvantage where you can least afford it. You'll be afraid of practicing with full power carry ammunition for fear of hurting the piece. So when it comes time to use that +p stuff in the real world, it will be a new experience for you quite unlike your training. That's what I always try to avoid.

Whether the LCR is such a delicate flower remains to be seen. Other Ruger revolvers I've used have been anything but delicate, which is why I love them.

[Ed Ames]

Meh.

I mean, I kinda agree... you should practice with a gun that handles the way your carry gun handles. But if you think that you are somehow more prepared because you blow $40/wk on premium self defense ammo to punch holes in targets than you would be if you spent $40/wk on primers to fire those plastic bullets you're just fooling yourself.

I shoot everything from .22 (or even pellet guns) to a .454 casull and frankly I don't see that big a difference. The non-practiced realities (adrenaline dump, injury, etc) are far more important, and the only way to minimize those effects is frequent (as in daily or every couple of days) and dedicated practice of the basic skills...something you can do far more easily if you relax the "gotta prove to myself that this round will feed through my...revolver...still" policy and practice with proper practice ammo.

It's about using the proper tools for the job.

[Cosmoline]

That's why it's wise to handload. A little Unique and 2400 go a long long way for handgun loads.

I shoot everything from .22 (or even pellet guns) to a .454 casull and frankly I don't see that big a difference.

You've got to have some astonishingly strong arms and hands! The Casull has left me hurting bad. I suspect it gave me a hairline fracture once, my middle finger was aching for a month. The .22 has not done that LOL And yeah I can tell a pretty big difference in the way they handle. I grant you, for a HUNTING application it's all about that first round and with a big scoped revolver you've got a lot going for you. But when it comes to a gunfight, or predator defense for that matter, things happen so fast. My goal is, to the extent possible, to make drawing firing and hitting accurately second nature. No surprises. So when the Speed Six bucks and pitches in recoil I need to be able to work right through it and keep up the pace. For me that takes a lot of practice and as much range time with it as I can get. Every time I'm over checking loads for the rifles I make a point of capping off at least 25 and preferably 50 from my carry piece. And every time I've got a little personal rust to cut through before I get back to form. I just don't see that working as well if I substitute the same platform shooting .22LR.

That said, there's nothing wrong with having a plinker as well and shooting it a lot. It's a fantastic idea. What I object to is the notion, often overheard from salesmen, that you really don't need to be able to shoot full powered ammo from handgun X because it's just going to sit in the holster for years and you'll probably never use it.

[Ed Ames]

Yeah, handloading is even better, but often the issue isn't so much load as opportunity to shoot. Relatively rural areas that allow shooting near home are nice, but for the unfortunate majority of us shooting means an expensive and relatively constrained trip to a public range...and strict rules against rapid fire, drawing from holsters, and everything else even remotely useful. Insurance-mandated "reality" sucks.

Astonishingly strong? LOL...no, but I'm cheating a bit since my .454 is the little Alaskan. Short barrel means less recoil. Plus I think firing a 2.75" X-frame in .460S&W reset...no, broke, my recoil sense and possibly more. Shooting the snub .460 was one of those "in the black, on the paper, who knows I'm done" experiences, and it left my hand and arm aching for several days. The Alaskan is treated a lot more like a concealed carry/SD gun than a scoped hunting gun, and the normal loads I use (340gr JHP to 360gr FP) are stout but not enough to keep me from being yelled at by the "rangemasters" where I shoot for breaking their "no rapid fire" rule...while maintaining a reasonable group size. I don't think I'll ever be able to double-tap with it...but it can be drawn and fired as quick as a 1911 and the *skill* involved in making a follow up shot is no different for it than for a model 10 or any other DA revolver.

As for "probably never use it" salesmen...good point. OTOH, I think you've got to apply the right standards for the weapon type.

With autoloaders, the standard advice is to fire 200+ rds of your chosen SD ammo (which in turn should, for lawsuit avoidance, be factory ammo) in order to prove function... and to continue pouring copious amounts of that premium factory ammo through the gun to maintain a level of certainty that the gun and ammo will operate together. Revolvers simply don't need that level of ammo compatibility testing. It isn't that there are no issues...but the issues (e.g. bullet setback) can be checked for after firing a few rounds. It is perfectly reasonable to use practice ammo when practicing with a revolver. Which is where I was coming from. I think practicing with hundreds or thousands of rounds of premium +P ammo with a revolver is a waste of money and will result in a lower level of skill than if you spent the same money (and more time) with proper practice ammo..... including those plastic bullets.

Not saying anyone has to agree with me of course. :D

[Magnumite]

I have about 300 rounds through my LCR. No +P loads but about 100 148 gr DEWC loads and about 200 158 grain @800 fps loads (4" barrel). There in no indication of cylinder end shake developing (frame stretching), barrel forcing cone erosion, nor cylinder crane looseness.

This is a modern firearm using modern alloys, not old technology. Look close at the frame of the LCR in the video. Those are white powder burns. That is a hot powder at high pressures. I bet he was shooting handloads far beyond +P pressures.

[Solitude]

Solitude...no source. Just a best WAG based on the size, weight, and construction of the gun. It also depends heavily on the ammunition. Low-pressure/recoil impulse=longer service life.

OK, thanks for the forthright answer. I will give your opinion on this issue the weight I think it deserves.

I actually own an LCR, and have fired about 500 round through it so far, about 400 rounds of regular pressure and about 100 of +p. I have seen no wear issues so far, indeed it looks and functions exactly as it did when brand new.

From this experience, I believe that the "life expectancy" of this little revolver will be substantially more than you expect. But I could be wrong.;)

[Headless]

The result is that I can raise the gun and hit my target pretty quickly. Not competition quick maybe but under a second for an aimed shot. Aimed.

I believe this is where the disconnect is; this statement seems to indicate that you think that 'aimed' fire necessarily means you are using the sights, but I consider a shot from outside the sight picture 'aimed' as well, as long as you are still 'aiming' the gun to hit a target. In this way, point shooting without a sight picture can result in 'aimed' shots. Un aimed shots would be shooting wildly with no regard for where the bullets hit.

And it's not as though I can only pull the trigger once every two seconds. The sights are there for a reason. I can think of no good excuse not to use them in the real world.

Well, what if it's dark? Even with night sights, what if your sights are covered in mud or otherwise occluded? What if you can't extend the gun in front of your face to line up the sights due to exterior interference or without risking losing control of the gun? What if you are blinded in your dominant eye during your encounter? Would you be better off trying to shoot off-hand so you can line the sights up correctly? Or would you awkwardly hold your gun over the weak eye with your strong hand to get your sight picture?

The possibilities for not being able to use your sights in an SD encounter are endless, and I've read several more than one reports from people who have been in self defense shootings where they indicate that they didn't use the sights at all, yet still scored hits on their targets.

When things go down the toilet, you may have the time and ability to use your sights, or you may not. If you can teach yourself to point shoot, you will not need a full second and a clear sight picture to get that first shot off, and that is a huge advantage, especially in low light situations on targets that are moving quickly relative to you. If you can teach yourself to point shoot rapid fire under heavy recoil, then you will improve the speed of your follow up shots considerably - especially if you are shooting in failing light, or while attempting to move to cover which will require you to focus on something other than your sight to navigate through your environment.

I spent the time learning how to raise the gun to a correct sight picture, and how to shoot accurately with both eyes open, to give me the edge that sights offer. Honestly, not using the sights and controlling your shots is why cops constantly empty 17+ round magazines into the air around the person they are shooting at. I'd rather not follow their example. Bullets that miss are nothing but a liability.


I also spent plenty of time learning the correct sight picture, stance, and how to focus on the sights with both eyes open. These is a good skills to have - but I also recognize that shooting for practice at the range is nothing like shooting in a defensive situation, and that's why i moved on from bullseye style target shooting and have been cultivating a sense for point shooting.

I believe that the reason that cops empty their 17+ round magazine into the air around the person they are shooting at when they get into a real shooting situation can be more attributed to the fact that the training for the average police officer consists entirely of range-style sighted fire, and all they have ever trained with is 'slow, smooth, steady sight picture', just like you described. Then, in the real world, when another person started shooting at them, they did what they had to - moved to cover, returned fire as quickly as possible... and unfortunately had no real feel for point shooting so missed their target completely. I actually believe that more focus on point shooting inside 10 yards would improve hit percentages in real world situations immensely, and actually think that this underscores my point even further.

When in a defensive shootout, you don't need a perfect 10-ring shot to the heart that takes you over a second to line up, you need 3 shots inside the 6 ring, centered on the target, as fast as you possibly can. In other words, 3 'good' hits are better than 1 'perfect' hit that takes you so long to line up that you are shot before you can pull the trigger. This is the disconnect between sighted bullseye shooting and rapid fire point shooting; one assumes that you will always have the time and the vision and the maneuverability to line your sights up and shoot every time; the other prepares you for the times when you will be unable to use the sights, and it doesn't 'un-train' your sighted fire shooting, whereas shooting a ton of ammunition that hits to a different POA than your carry load WILL un-train your natural feel for how to point shoot that weapon accurately.

Point shooting, i look towards emptying all 5 rounds from a snub as fast as I can pull the trigger and still ending up with 3 or 4 hits on a moving target ~3-5 inches across at 6-10 yards, without any sight picture at all. That kind of 'feel' for where your pistol will shoot requires that you can practice extensively with your carry load. If you practice to always use the sights and take a second per shot to fire, you may find that you are at a severe disadvantage when the time comes and you cannot for whatever external reasons use your sights.

Sighted slow fire is great for stationary targets 20 yards away, but inside 7 yards i am going to be point shooting every time, especially if it's dark and I am in the defensive; that first round needs to be out as quickly as possible, and it needs to be decisively placed.

Some reference material from a quick google search that supports this concept:

"Shooting Distances

From Sept 1954 to Dec 1979, 254 officers died from wounds received in an
armed encounter. The shooting distance in 90% of those cases was less than
15 feet.

Contact to 3 feet ... 34%
3 feet to 6 feet ...... 47%
6 feet to 15 feet ..... 9%

The shooting distances where officers survived, remained almost the same
during the SOP years (1970-1979), and for a random sampling of cases going
back as far as 1929. 4,000 cases were reviewed. The shooting distance in
75% of those cases was less than 20 feet.

Contact to 10 feet ... 51%
10 feet to 20 feet .... 24%

Lighting Conditions

The majority of incidents occurred in poor lighting conditions. None
occurred in what could be called total darkness. It was noted that
flashlights were not used as a marksmanship aid. Also, dim light firing
involves another element which is different from full light firing, muzzle
flash.
. . . .


Sight Alignment

In 70% of the cases reviewed, sight alignment was not used. Officers
reported that they used instinctive or point shooting.

As the distance between the officer and his opponent increased, some type of
aiming was reported in 20% of the cases. This aiming or sighting ran from
using the barrel as an aiming reference to picking up the front sight and
utilizing fine sight alignment.

The remaining 10% could not remember whether they had aimed or pointed and fired the weapon instinctively.

http://www.virginiacops.org/Articles/Shooting/Combat.htm

That's right - all that training in bullseye target shooting, and 70%+ said they never looked at the sights when it really mattered. It's one thing to be on the offensive with your weapon already in position, and another entirely to need to draw and defend yourself while under attack. I'd bet good money that those police officers would have score much better than a measly 11.5% of shots between 3 and 7 yard if their training did not drill sight picture and instead focused on threat based targeting and point shooting.

[Solitude]

I emailed Ruger and asked if the LCR has a "life expectancy of 1,000 rounds". The following was their answer.

"Ruger firearms have a very good reputation for service life. With proper handling and care, you should receive many years of service from our products. However, any firearm may be irreparably damaged in short order by abuse or neglect, so it is impossible to state the life expectancy of any Ruger firearm.
Prototypes were tested at over 10,000 rounds fired (158+P) and through over 40,000 dry fire cycles."

I think this a very reasonable response. No manufacturer can account for some of the things their customers might do! So absent abuse and neglect (which Ruger does NOT define as firing 158gr +P ammunition, even a lot of it) I think the 1,000 rounds thing is unlikely.

[Ed Ames]

Headless, I'm in cell phone only mode today so I'm not going to give the full tit-for-tat your post deserves.

You keep trying to imply that I'm focusing on "slow fire" or bullseye type shooting. Not even close to true. You also keep trying to say that learing how to shoot properly will somehow prevent you from actually shooting when you need to. My contention is that proper training will build basic skills that allow for smooth automatic speed...and a "feel" for how guns shoot, that is just as good as what you are doing for short ranges (where, frankly, man sized targets are huge) while leaving you better prepared for just about every other type of shooting.

Let's take the other side. Have you considered the possibility that training to draw and empty a gun at any moment is what gets BART riders accidentally executed on video?

[fireside44]

[QUOTE]No offense, but "saturday night special" is a term made up by people trying to deny low-income individuals their RKBA.

Online, Merriam-Webster has an entry listed from 1968 that reads:

"a cheap and easily concealed handgun"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from all I can tell, the term has likely existed long before any anti gun legislation using said term was introduced.

"Ruger firearms have a very good reputation for service life. With proper handling and care, you should receive many years of service from our products. However, any firearm may be irreparably damaged in short order by abuse or neglect, so it is impossible to state the life expectancy of any Ruger firearm.
Prototypes were tested at over 10,000 rounds fired (158+P) and through over 40,000 dry fire cycles."

"It is impossible to state the life expectancy of any Ruger firearm" followed by "Prototypes were tested at over 10,000 rounds...."

Double speak.

They tested prototypes but not production models on a brand new design?

10,000 rounds equals about three years of regular shooting in my world, give or take a year.

[9x19sig]

Wow, someone started the 1000 round life expectancy theory (is it 4:20 already?), and now people are dissecting Ruger's response that the LCR has been tested with over 10,000 rounds of 158+p.

I'm gonna go out on a limb when I say this, but, I'm guessing that all the people who are taking a negative stance are S&W fanboys who aren't too happy that Ruger is actually being innovative when it comes to revolvers. Oh knoes it's made out of plastics and stuffs! Take cover!

Ruger for teh win.

[Ed Ames]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but from all I can tell, the term has likely existed long before any anti gun legislation using said term was introduced.

See http://ellegon.com/features/data/fallacies/ ... it's not far wrong.

I'm gonna go out on a limb when I say this, but, I'm guessing that all the people who are taking a negative stance are S&W fanboys who aren't too happy that Ruger is actually being innovative when it comes to revolvers. Oh knoes it's made out of plastics and stuffs! Take cover!


LOL, I don't think you could be more backward. Not if you were trying. It isn't that we (or I) think these guns are bad...it's that we (or I) think they might actually have been designed correctly.

The whole point of these things is to push the limit of lightness while still being usable as a back-up SELF-DEFENSE tool. Every ounce, every fraction of an ounce, that Ruger dedicates to handling 10,000+P loads is a simple mistake. A failure of vision.

The reality is that most of these guns will see a sensible amount of use. Most will be fired a few hundred times over 15-30 years of hard use. A few will have the snot beaten out of them as rental guns or the like, and if Ruger wants to be nice they'll fix them up periodically as a gift to the owners, but the vast majority will never reach 1000rds of normal ammo. Targeting 10X that as a safety margin is somewhat reasonable as conservative engineering or lawyerpleasing but it isn't good design. Good design is targeting 1000 and dealing with the fringe that beats the snot out of their guns on a case by case basis, because if Ruger did that then EVERYBODY wins with a lighter and better fit to purpose gun.

[9x19sig]

If a Ruger LCR had flame cutting after 500 rounds and nobody was there to hear it, did it actually make a sound?

[Headless]

Let's take the other side. Have you considered the possibility that training to draw and empty a gun at any moment is what gets BART riders accidentally executed on video?

Come now, where in the world do you get this idea from? Are you really trying to insinuate that point shooting rapid fire leads to a cop shooting an unarmed man while he has him subdued? Really? That officer was likely trained the same way you do, which is aimed, sighted slow fire, sight picture every time, so if anything you could say that it's the other way around...but you and I both know that whether someone shoots using sights or point shooting has nothing to do with a police officer accidentally killing a man who is subdued and on the ground underneath him.

You keep trying to imply that I'm focusing on "slow fire" or bullseye type shooting. Not even close to true. You also keep trying to say that learing how to shoot properly will somehow prevent you from actually shooting when you need to. My contention is that proper training will build basic skills that allow for smooth automatic speed...and a "feel" for how guns shoot, that is just as good as what you are doing for short ranges (where, frankly, man sized targets are huge) while leaving you better prepared for just about every other type of shooting.

Like it or not, getting a sight picture every time you shoot is 'slow fire' compared to rapid point shooting. I'm sure you fire pretty quickly while getting a sight picture after every shot, but there's no comparison to not needing the sight picture at all. If you are getting your 'feel' for guns from simunitions, your 'feel' is going to be 12 inches low unless you have managed to get your low power rounds to hit the same POA as your carry load. What you are describing as your training IS bullseye slow fire shooting. You are aligning the sights every shot and going for the tightest groups possible; this is the exact opposite of threat based engagement and point shooting where you don't even use your sights. I train both ways; plenty of slow fire bullseye with sights at the range, and one of my favorite things to do is 50 yard .22 pistol shooting, but that's a totally different ballgame than how I train with my snub nose revolver the vast majority of the time. Sure, I still put a few cylinders through in slow fire, sighted shots at 25 to 75 yards, but that's not how this gun was designed to be employed, so I don't see why it should compose the majority of my training time, especially if it's more likely to put me stationary and trying to line up the sights in a situation where I need to be mobile and putting lead on target without using the sights.

[mnrivrat]

An interesting thread and a lot of speculation based on a sample size of 1 .

In my view of the video it did indeed look like there was errosion of the frame just above the barrel throat. There is not much lead through of the barrel into the cylinder opening on this design, and the cutting seems to be more on the cylinder opening just above the barrel than it is on the top strap. It also appears as if some of that material had collected onto the cylinder.

Not much of a conclusion can be drawn from this however as the sample size is just to small. If what I think I saw is happening , and the information given is correct, then I would not be happy with that particular gun.

If the problem is wide spread on the LCR then there is a problem, and one that needs to be addressed with a recall and design change. Way to early to tell at this point - I will just keep an eye open and find out over time where this goes.

[Ed Ames]

Come now, where in the world do you get this idea from?

From knowing that conditioned automatic behaviors are also known as thoughtless reflexive actions.

Like it or not, getting a sight picture every time you shoot is 'slow fire' compared to rapid point shooting.

Shrug. I sometimes amuse myself watching videos of really fast shooters (youtube has a bunch, and there are others), and in all honesty the speed difference between the guys who are obviously aiming and the point shooters ain't that great, especially when you go beyond 4 targets and start using loaded ammo.

Most of the really great point shooters made their reputation with blanks.

If you are getting your 'feel' for guns from simunitions,

Naw, I have no place I can use those things. Live in an urban apartment. I run .22LR and handloads at a range for practice these days.

[Headless]

I think it's safe to say that a cop pulling his gun and shooting someone in the back while they have a knee between their shoulder blades is not a 'reflexive automatic condition behavior' that they learned in training. I don't think that the officer drilled this particular set of events until it became an automatic response; have you ever seen any police training that involves pulling a gun and shooting someone who is totally subdued underneath them? If you have, i'd love to hear about it, as I am sure would many other people.

At this point I'm having a hard time taking your arguments seriously anymore; you're not actually responding to any of the points i'm making with logical responses, just bringing up additional unrelated items each time you respond. Somehow we went from 'training with low power plastic bullets that hit in a completely different place than your carry load every day makes you faster, smoother and better at shooting' to, 'point shooting causes cops to kill innocent civilians'. Now you're talking about youtube videos not really looking any faster than sighted fire. Are those youtube videos of people in failing light or in positions that don't allow them to USE the sights? What about firing from inside your pocket, or while keeping your head behind cover, only exposing your weapon and weapon hand to incoming fire? You keep bringing up scenarios that are great in a controlled training environment, but that is the entire problem. Standing at the range and punching holes in paper does not prepare you for real defensive situations. If you don't believe me, perhaps you should listen to people who train others for a living; there is a very real benefit to un-sighted point shooting, especially when it comes to self defense. It's one thing to pull your gun and wade into a gunfight aware in advance, but another to react to someone else assaulting you. Police training hit rates prove this point; on average, police hit their targets the SAME amount of times as criminals do during gunfights, even though police are trained extensively relative to the average thug. Why? Because they're trained the same way you describe; sighted slow fire, which doesn't work in fast paced close range combat near as well as competent point shooting. Statistics from actual cops who were in gunfights (i quoted those earlier, but you ignored them) actually confirm this also, with 70+% of officers saying they didn't even use the sights, and a significant portion of the remainder not remembering either way.

This is just getting ridiculous. I'm going to go read a book or something; perhaps the thread can go back to a more reasonable debate after our exit; if you want to actually respond directly to any of my arguments with realistic and logical arguments, perhaps we should start another thread about whether or not slow sighted fire helps someone when their target is within 5 yards of them and highly mobile. There is plenty of material out there on this subject if you care to research any of it. I did.

[Ed Ames]

I think it's safe to say that a cop pulling his gun and shooting someone in the back while they have a knee between their shoulder blades is not a 'reflexive automatic condition behavior' that they learned in training.

Actually, it is exactly the training for deploying tazers. The problem is that, because it was a reflexive behavior, the guy didn't register that he grabbed his gun instead of his tazer in the time between grabbing it and firing.

Take it seriously or not, it's what the shooter said happened.

[Headless]

Actually, it is exactly the training for deploying tazers. The problem is that, because it was a reflexive behavior, the guy didn't register that he grabbed his gun instead of his tazer in the time between grabbing it and firing.


The training would have made him reflexively grab with his other hand, actually, as the tazer is in a holster on the other side of his body entirely. This wasn't a failure of training through 'automatic mode taking over and following the steps of training exactly without thought' like you are implying, it was 'training failed utterly because it didn't familiarize the officer enough with which hand draws which weapon'; he wasn't trained well enough in the first place.

And once again, you only respond to a tiny tidbit of a post, ignoring anything that is valid with an argument that isn't even logically backed.

I really am done now.

[Ed Ames]

And once again, you only respond to a tiny tidbit of a post

Your posts seem to grow from the time I reply to them and I'm not really into the painful point for point slogging match thing right now.

The way to train for unfamiliar and unpredictable situations is to emphasize fundamental skills. That means using the tools which aid consistency, like sights, so that your practice is of high quality and you are able to attain the desired results without having to concentrate on the low-level mechanics.

It doesn't mean learning how to shoot tennis balls. Even if shooting tennis balls sounds like fun.

A useful tool for basic skill training, especially for double-action-only revolvers, is very inexpensive target ammo. An even more useful tool, circumstances permitting, is ammo which allows daily practice at home. That practice ammo is a perfect example. It allows a trainee to shoot for approximately 1/20th the price of conventional loaded ammo. Which means that a budget which allowed 50rds per month now allows 1000 rounds per month. It also allows shooting in a garage, back yard, basement, or similar, which can mean daily shooting for people who would not otherwise have that opportunity. Daily skill reinforcement can drastically increase the retention of skills and quality of learning. Are there downsides? Yes. Is the fact that POI is different than POA a legitimate downside? No. Why not? Because the trainee SHOULD NOT BE TRAINING THEMSELVES TO LOOK FOR HOLES AS THEY SHOOT. It's as bad a habit as pocketing empty cartridges after a reload. They should be concentrating on shooting and should check the results only after they have completed the exercise.

I am not dismissing your skill at shooting tennis balls. I think it is legitimately impressive. However, I think you are making a mistake if you honestly think that shooting tennis balls is any less artificial than using plastic bullets.

I see major downsides to your emphasis "so fast I can't use the sights" shooting. I mean, beyond the possibility that in a real-world SD situation your attacker might drop a tennis ball and cause you to empty your gun. Your emphasis on point shooting creates a discontinuity in your shooting skills. At some range you will make a transition from point shooting to conventionally aimed fire, and that transition will leave you in unpracticed (or less practiced) territory. If, on the other hand, you used a consistent method which works at both near and far ranges you would not be creating such a discontinuity in your skills. You attempt to imply that training in proper methods will leave a person unable to adapt to any other situation, despite my pointing out that by practicing correctly I have personally learned to do what you say is important (point shooting) without sacrificing my training in proper marksmanship. You assert your methods are faster, and deride me when I point out that easily available video evidence disputes your assertion. You justify the gap in your training methods by citing studies showing that most confrontations are at short range. Logically, that is no different than the people who cite studies showing that 95% of self-defense firearms uses are accomplished without discharging the firearm to dismiss marksmanship training altogether.

No, I'm not addressing every point in your posts. I addressed only what I considered to be the most harmful of your points.

[Kingofthehill]

I don't trust a word he said. He looks like he just lost a family member.... I would hate to of been the shop he bought that gun from. Having worked at gun shops and other hobby shops, him coming in there sniveling.... ahh... irritates me just watching.

JOe

[Mad Chemist]

Target wadcutter ammunition is an ideal practice round for the little aluminum-framed guns. I haven't seen any of that commercially available in years, so it may be a handload proposition. A 148-grain DEWC and 2.7 grains of Bullseye is about right.


S&B still makes 148grWC ammo. That is what I used to feed my 642-2 before I began reloading. My j is still running strong after at least 2k rds through it (about 1/2 WC and 1/2 std factory 158RN). The finish is on the but and backstrap has serious wear from frequent carry but lockup and accuracy are still tight. Now that I load ammo I primarily feed it 148grHBWC over 3.0 gr Unique or slightly hotter SWC loads.

[Mad Chemist]

I think a couple of fellas on this thread (you know who you are) ought to take your pissing match over to PMs. You guys are dragging the thread off topic and are going to get it locked.

This thread is about the durability, reliability, overall life expectancy, and realistic expectations of performance from small lightweight revolvers.

This thread is NOT about high profile police shootings or the merits of so-called point shooting vs. so-called sigted-fire. Take it somewhere else please.

[highorder]

Anybody seen an LCR around here?...

[gordy]

It would have been wise for the guy in the vidio to clean the gun before he started making claims that it was cutting the frame.
5,000 to 10,000 rnds of 125gr. boomers will stretch a k frame. But it was very hard to see any damage on that lcr, as dirty as it was.
I have always told peaple . If you want to pound nails with it buy a ruger, If you want it to feel like a soft and smooth girl by a S&W.
I have a 642 and it is not ment to be a 500 round a day gun. Just one if needed.
It looked like a lot of lead built up in the vidio

[MachIVshooter]

But the idea that a k-frame cannot stand up to a lifetime of regular shooting is just absurd, and the huge number of k-frames still in use is testimony to that fact

+1. I've put one helluva lot of .357 loads through K-frames with no problems. Granted, I'm not running the loads that generate 700+ ft/lbs though them. I have 586's & 686's for that. I recently traded off a P&R 19-4 that had seen LOTS of use. Still in time with good lock up, minimal flame cutting, no forcing cone cracks and perfectly acceptable cylinder gap.

As to the LCR, while I believe it should last much longer than 500 or 1,000 rounds (and I expect they generally do), I agree with others; it's not a range beater. If you take it out and run two or three boxes twice a month, you're not likely to be passing it on to your kids-at least not without it needing some serious work. Likewise, though the S&W 340/360 are .357 Magnums, I'd expect those 12 ounce guns to batter themselves pretty badly with a steady diet of full power loads.

[Peter M. Eick]

What I have learned from my 357 Maximums is that it is the bullet and the powder combination that causes the flame cutting. While researching what I should load I found a test where someone had duplicated the results of flame cutting by using a sand blaster at high pressure. This would be like using say 231 with a hot load or even 296.

I saw this vividly when I shot some H110 with 158's out of my Max and cut a nice little groove. Before this I was shooting 4227 a big stick powder and had no problems.

My interpretation is that you should shoot stick powders and heavy for caliber bullets if you want to avoid flame cutting. This has worked well for me so far.

[atlanticfire]

life expectancy of about a thousand rounds
If true than its a more useless firearms that I had originally deduced. If I was going to carry something for protection I would want to be intimately familiar with and able to practice with it a lot. To me a gun like this makes less than no sense. And I love Ruger guns! So this is especially disappointing.

[Magnumite]

A statement made by someone with no firsthand experience with the gun and comparing it to an old technology production from another company.

The LCR has a life expectancy far beyond 1000 rounds. Call, Ruger. I am sure they'll let you know what the life expectency is.

[w_houle]

How about email?
Response:
Ruger firearms have a very good reputation for service life. With proper handling and care, you should receive many years of service from our products. However, any firearm may be irreparably damaged in short order by abuse or neglect, so it is impossible to state the life expectancy of any Ruger firearm.
Prototypes were tested with over 10,000 rounds and over 40,000 dry fires.

[ir3e971]

I think that the disadvantages of these smaller pistols are being overstated here. My 642 has been durable, dependable, and accurate (at least as I can be with those limited sights). The dreaded ILS has not event failed me; though it is my only revolver with this regrettable feature.

The aluminum frame pistol has probably has about 1200 rounds through it (best guess). Granted these would be medium 38 loads, mostly as I want to remain proficient with it, not beat the heck out of myself.

I suspect the same will be true of the Ruger, though I can't prove it because I don't own one.

Had the Ruger LCR been out when I purchased this 642 I would probably have bought it because of the trigger.

[thebaldguy]

I haven't seen many revolvers that don't have any flame cutting.

[Magnumite]

typically, though, high pressure rounds cause flame cutting. Low pressure rounds don't build the heat or partical velocities of the high pressure rounds which blow torches and erodes the frame and barrel breech area.

[Jonah71]

Well, I liked the LCR I was checking out at my usual gun shop yesterday. I even called the dealer to put one aside for me. But after reading most of the "on topic" posts on this thread, I'm not sure I wanna spend $400 on this gun. I still want a light weight .38 spec or .357 mag. but it seems the jury is still out on this one. I'll be calling my dealer back to put the gun on the shelf. Maybe it's gonna be hard (or impossible) for me to find a dependable lt wt for carry that I can shoot as much as I want at the range. Don't have any experiance with the newer materials being used so I may just have to give up on the idea.

[Ed Harris]

What works for me is to have two or several similar guns, same frame size, grips, sights, etc. Use the light alloy one for carry and a steel version for practice. I shoot my Colt Cobra only occasionally, mostly with wadcutter, although I carry +P in it. My late model steel frame Detective Special and Police Positive get the bulk of range work. You could do the same thing with several S&W J or K frames and not spend anymore than you would on a full race M1911.

[rogertc1]

That video is over a year old and has been posted here before. It is the only errosion ever reported anywhere on the LCP. Hummm...everything on the internet is true.

[Jonah71]

What I carry as far as ammo and what I fire at the range are usually different rounds anyway. Unless I'm shooting a new round or a new gun just as a test, I won't be using +P's. I tend to go cheap at the range.

[ManOfManyGuns]

Have you guys watched this fellows other videos? Particularly the vid where he's "bumpin" his AK? Or his first "review" of the LCR where he just plays around with it?

I would not call this man an authority on proper and safe gun use. He has 12 videos posted, most of them are just his hands playing with guns and telling you what he bought the gun for.

Youtube is not where you go to find reviews of weapons by experts. It's full of people who I am sure Jeff Cooper would like to smack on the side of the head. I have seen many unsafe practices and bad habits on youtube by self proclaimed shooting experts.

I own an LCR. It's on my hip right now. I've easily put 500 rounds through it with zero problems to speak of. Like any gun you have to get used to it's function and features. In this case, the only discipline I had to worry about was making sure I fully return the trigger before depressing it again. No big deal since that's how I was trained to fire pistols.

You know, the proper way to fire them.

I use magtech ammo on the range, and federal hydra-shok for defense.

I've used this gun in a CQB shoot house, and was very happy with it's performance in timed trials, and accuracy testing.