Opinions

Jeff olson said:

Smith and Wesson hasn't made a great revolver in years.

Click to expand...

Some of us haven't been impressed with many of Ruger's revolver offerings over the last several years, either.

I went 642 no lock.
Have seen 442s w cracked frames, two of em and neither shot very much.
Interestingly, both were nickel.

If it cracks have Smith replace.

As for the finish..........if it gets to looking really nasty, have it cerkoted.
Its a tool, aint really worried about the looks.
Carry rigs get finish damaged.

642 got a Wilson spring kit and strut edges smoothed. Polished rebound slide.
After all that it feels the same to me.
Im losing my ability to feel subtle changes.
Guess that goes along w the ol ladys cooking tasting better these days LOL

I'm a S&W revolver guy, but this:

SwampWolf said:

I've got a couple of J-frames and one LCR. If you're after a small revolver for self-defense, I'd pick the ugly Ruger hands-down; the da pull is way lighter and smoother.

Click to expand...

SDGlock23 said:

The S&W looks better but the LCR has a better trigger.

Click to expand...

Viers said:

Most newer revolver folks seem to prefer the Ruger trigger.

Click to expand...

I'm one of those older revolver guys who much prefers the da trigger pull of an LCR when compared to a typical J-frame.

I would go with the one that had the smoother trigger. They both hold the same amount of ammo, both are small, so they may be difficult to get a good grip.

If possible, try to rent or borrow both of them and see which is more comfortable for you to shoot.

Jim

I chose the 642, but I don't think you'd go wrong with either one.

This thread has me thinking about giving an LCR in .38 Spl a try once prices moderate a little more.