Does this look like flame cutting? Pics. Ruger LCR. little help?
- Thread starter FirearmsInPhoenix
- Start date
- Status
OP
OP
FirearmsInPhoenix
Member
Nah, I'm fine. My mind's at ease. I need know no more. I'll check the top strap in 3000-5000 rounds and see what's going on. But I'm confident in the firearm and I don't care about what causes the mark. I don't mind a mark from the factory. I'm likely going to mar it up significantly anyway.
Just because I have the time I am going to render an opinion . I know what opinions are worth ,and I know mine is not special, but in this case I feel compeled to express it anyway.
My opinion is that this does not pass the smell test. It looks to me like the replacement gun was doctored to match the divot of the gun sent in . I say this because the location seems slightly different, and because I have not seen this on other new LCR's. (admittesly have not looked at many)
It also makes no sense that Ruger would replace the one sent in if this divot was a factory regular thing. I suspect the divot was flame cutting, but may not be a big issue as far as reliablity, safety, or longivity. A flame cutting that likely will only go so far and then stop. A flame cutting likely seen in testing, but knowing that it does not cause a problem other than cosmeticaly to a few who notice it, they deal with it in this manner.
If you look at certain versions of the S&W light weight snub guns you will find a small stainless plate fitted into the area above the barrel to prevent the flame cutting on their guns.
I suspect that the OP's gun will be just fine and give good service, but I also suspect that Ruger may not have been totaly honest on this.
I recognize a full ability to be wrong, but it would be nice if you folks who own one of these check your gun - particularly if new, to see if your new LCR has this little divot .
My opinion is that this does not pass the smell test. It looks to me like the replacement gun was doctored to match the divot of the gun sent in . I say this because the location seems slightly different, and because I have not seen this on other new LCR's. (admittesly have not looked at many)
It also makes no sense that Ruger would replace the one sent in if this divot was a factory regular thing. I suspect the divot was flame cutting, but may not be a big issue as far as reliablity, safety, or longivity. A flame cutting that likely will only go so far and then stop. A flame cutting likely seen in testing, but knowing that it does not cause a problem other than cosmeticaly to a few who notice it, they deal with it in this manner.
If you look at certain versions of the S&W light weight snub guns you will find a small stainless plate fitted into the area above the barrel to prevent the flame cutting on their guns.
I suspect that the OP's gun will be just fine and give good service, but I also suspect that Ruger may not have been totaly honest on this.
I recognize a full ability to be wrong, but it would be nice if you folks who own one of these check your gun - particularly if new, to see if your new LCR has this little divot .
Aunt Bee
Member
It's not on my wife's . The gun has been fired about 150 times with .38 RN.
They install the plate on 357's.
In my experience, flame cutting makes a long and thin mark in line with the barrel/cylinder gap. The OP has a short and wide mark right where the topstrap begins to curve down. It's a tool mark.
OP
OP
FirearmsInPhoenix
Member
I guess I don't see the logic in this for Ruger when they had already said the gun needed to be replaced (ie. it was defective). In fact, sending me a gun after purposefully having placed a divot in the same place is more likely to make call back and complain for getting a poor specimen. I just happen not to care.
Also, your statement implies no integrity on the part of Ruger - it's a serious accusation. Most posts I've read of Ruger customers who've dealt with Ruger customer service seem to imply Sturm Ruger has a reputation for excellent customer service and integrity.
Your right, you could be wrong.
As long as you are happy there is no problem - not for you, not for Ruger , and not for me.
Yes, it is a strong accusation , but I hold nobody, including Ruger, on a pedistal when it comes to applying the smell test. Don't you at least have a question in your mind what exactly it was that made your old gun non repairable?
If others do not have that divit out of their new guns, do you not question whey your replacement has one ?
Perhaps I am not trusting enough, but blind faith has not proven itself to be good company either. It is what it is , not what you or I wish it to be. As stated I suspect the gun will give good service , I have no axe to grind with Ruger, but I have seen plenty of defects on their products as well as on products from other well respected companies - it happens.
I have also seen integrity go out the window with folks no less thought of than Rugers customer service, and including Rugers customer service a time or two.
Yes, it is a strong accusation , but I hold nobody, including Ruger, on a pedistal when it comes to applying the smell test. Don't you at least have a question in your mind what exactly it was that made your old gun non repairable?
If others do not have that divit out of their new guns, do you not question whey your replacement has one ?
Perhaps I am not trusting enough, but blind faith has not proven itself to be good company either. It is what it is , not what you or I wish it to be. As stated I suspect the gun will give good service , I have no axe to grind with Ruger, but I have seen plenty of defects on their products as well as on products from other well respected companies - it happens.
I have also seen integrity go out the window with folks no less thought of than Rugers customer service, and including Rugers customer service a time or two.
Last edited:
Like the OP, my new replacement LCR has the same divot. It might be purpose milled to mitigate the start of cutting.
This was not...I repeat, NOT, what I sent my revolver in for. Mine was actual cutting, and it was observed under magnification and was significantly deeper and wider than the divot on both the OP's and my new LCR. I also has marks from melted metal on the outside edges of the cylinder where the gap would be closest to the cutting effect of the gases. I assume it was melted metal.
Ruger replaced my LRC in the same manner as the OP's and didnt offer any explanation. Im going to assume it will not happen again and if it does then I will re-address it with Ruger.
This was not...I repeat, NOT, what I sent my revolver in for. Mine was actual cutting, and it was observed under magnification and was significantly deeper and wider than the divot on both the OP's and my new LCR. I also has marks from melted metal on the outside edges of the cylinder where the gap would be closest to the cutting effect of the gases. I assume it was melted metal.
Ruger replaced my LRC in the same manner as the OP's and didnt offer any explanation. Im going to assume it will not happen again and if it does then I will re-address it with Ruger.
wriggly
Member
- Joined
- Apr 18, 2010
- Messages
- 308
I have a couple of friends that have LCR's and they both became aware of this anomaly from a post on another forum. One of the two then asked my opinion. I told them that it was from machining the back of the barrel after pressing it into the frame. To put their minds at ease, I took them around to 4 different gunshops, and lo and behold, we looked at a total 9 different LCR's, including two of which were the newer model with the Big Dot front sight and the Hogue boot grips, and one of the models with the Crimson Trace laser grips. The end result? all nine guns had the mark in varying degrees.
Why would Ruger replace the gun? Your guess would be the same as mine, mere conjecture, but I think the fact their cost is minimal in view of the manufacturing processes to make that particular model, and the low cost to them would be a factor, for a little customer satisfaction. Just like McDonalds, somtimes you have to throw away some product to keep your customers from complaining.
I had to come back and edit in, that after playing with all these damn LCR's, I now have to have one of the ones with the Big Dot sight, and the boot grip. That is one sweet little gun.
Why would Ruger replace the gun? Your guess would be the same as mine, mere conjecture, but I think the fact their cost is minimal in view of the manufacturing processes to make that particular model, and the low cost to them would be a factor, for a little customer satisfaction. Just like McDonalds, somtimes you have to throw away some product to keep your customers from complaining.
I had to come back and edit in, that after playing with all these damn LCR's, I now have to have one of the ones with the Big Dot sight, and the boot grip. That is one sweet little gun.
Last edited:
That seems to put some substance behind me being wrong all right . I'm pleased to hear that divot is a "natural" part of the LCR.
If so that might explain the early ones that I did not notice this on. Or ?
Anyway, a problem solved is no longer a problem .
Last edited:
Aunt Bee
Member
A natural part of some LCRs.
the-commuter
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2
NO,you shouldnt be worried about that either. If you are,call Ruger and emil pics on it. I have the LCR in .357 magnum and I have put 650 rounds of 125 grain Hornady Critical defense thru it and no problem and,on my .38 LCR,1,000 rounds and very minute blast from the lead[hardcast] and cleans off pretty easy for me. rich642z
96projectz24
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 54
Chalk up another one with the same mark from the factory, had it since the day I picked it up in June. No issues here!!
the-commuter
Member
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2010
- Messages
- 2
RE: My LCR - should I be concerned
I brought my LCR back to the shop I purchased it from. They said that is should not look like that and that it needed to go back to Ruger. Ruger now has the gun, I am waiting on their take. I am a Mechanical Engineer, and this is defiantly not a tooling mark, this is missing material.
I brought my LCR back to the shop I purchased it from. They said that is should not look like that and that it needed to go back to Ruger. Ruger now has the gun, I am waiting on their take. I am a Mechanical Engineer, and this is defiantly not a tooling mark, this is missing material.
Last edited:
Marshall
Member
Maybe they saw something completely unrelated to the divot that we're not even talking about and decided to replace the gun for you?
Either way, I would be a happy camper.
Enjoy your LCR!
Either way, I would be a happy camper.
Enjoy your LCR!
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Not long ago, I made mention that Ruger's neat little carry revolver probably had a life expectancy of about 500-1,000 rounds, and was soundly thrashed for even suggesting such a thing...so I shrugged and stepped out. Now, we start to see this issue showing up on several of them. So far, I've seen 5 of them do it real-world, and have read of several more on the gunz boardz.
Some will cut early on, and some will cut later on...but they'll all cut much, much earlier than a steel framed gun...and even though it goes only so far and stops...the topstrap is thinned and weakened in direct proportion to the percentage of loss. The frame then becomes more subject to stretching when fired. Stretched repeatedly, it stops snapping back. Then it stretches more...and the process repeats. This stretch creates added headspace. Excessive headspace leads to catastrophic failure, and possibly splinters of what was once the topstrap and cylinder in the shooter's face.
The little guns were designed to be carried...not shot.
Some will cut early on, and some will cut later on...but they'll all cut much, much earlier than a steel framed gun...and even though it goes only so far and stops...the topstrap is thinned and weakened in direct proportion to the percentage of loss. The frame then becomes more subject to stretching when fired. Stretched repeatedly, it stops snapping back. Then it stretches more...and the process repeats. This stretch creates added headspace. Excessive headspace leads to catastrophic failure, and possibly splinters of what was once the topstrap and cylinder in the shooter's face.
The little guns were designed to be carried...not shot.
96projectz24
Member
- Joined
- Nov 17, 2009
- Messages
- 54
Hmm, my Dad has had his quite a bit longer than I've had mine, approx 3,500 rounds through this peice that "isn't meant to be shot". I find it very, very hard to believe that this gun isn't meant to be shot, that's ludacris. Granted, it's not a steel framed revolver, but this is a quality gun that holds up well. Maybe there are a few bad apples out there, but that's par for the course with any manufacturer, you know that as well as I do. For a company like Ruger to put out a gun that is designed for you to carry to protect your life, but not make it good enough to shoot, doubt it.
JohnBT
Member
"that's ludacris"
Foul. Five yard penalty.
The word is ludicrous.
ludacris is a rapper.
Foul. Five yard penalty.
The word is ludicrous.
ludacris is a rapper.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Not disposable. Used on a limited basis. Meant to be carried....not used as range beaters. There are more robust guns available for that purpose.
- Status
