ljnowell
Member
Gotta love ruger. If they screw up they fix it, without any of the BS you get from some other companies.
LCR broke!
- Thread starter Lord Samwise
- Start date
- Status
Gotta love ruger. If they screw up they fix it, without any of the BS you get from some other companies.
Lord Samwise
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2009
- Messages
- 57
To answer the question, no, they never told me what was wrong with it.
mesinge2
Member
Ha, Love this
mesinge2
Member
To answer this question:
For revolvers I primarily carry my S&W M19-4 .357
Should this fail (hasn't happened yet) I would carry my S&W M36 .38
If this too should fail I have my Taurus M905 9mm
For revolvers I primarily carry my S&W M19-4 .357
Should this fail (hasn't happened yet) I would carry my S&W M36 .38
If this too should fail I have my Taurus M905 9mm
Last edited:
SwampWolf
Member
But did they tell you what the problem was ?
My (admittedly) limited experience with Ruger cs over the years is that they always fix the problem with no fanfare but never tell you what the problem was-probably for liability reasons. And, I'm fine with that.
My (admittedly) limited experience with Ruger cs over the years is that they always fix the problem with no fanfare but never tell you what the problem was-probably for liability reasons. And, I'm fine with that.
Deltaboy1984
Member
Glad you got it fixed; this is a good example of how things should be handled.
Lord Samwise
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2009
- Messages
- 57
The ideal for me would be a S&W 340PD as my primary and the LCR as my backup weapon... but I don't have the $$$ for another gun right now. The LCR works. Also, looks like I'm wearing some of the little rubber nubbins down on the Hogue grip from EDC, doesn't seem to effect the grip at all just something to point out.
This gun is not intended to be a range toy. Just in the 2000 cycles of dry firing you pushes it years beyond its intended service life.
I'm sure folks are going to say "yeah, but shouldn't I be able to shoot a $$$ gun without it breaking?" The answer is yes, just not as much as you did.
This gun is meant to be carried often and shot little (comparitively).
I'm sure folks are going to say "yeah, but shouldn't I be able to shoot a $$$ gun without it breaking?" The answer is yes, just not as much as you did.
This gun is meant to be carried often and shot little (comparitively).
rswartsell
Member
hmmm, Been using S&W off and on for 40 years and other than factory letters I couldn't tell you a thing about their customer service other than I've never needed it, not even for an internal lock 
.
It just doesn't say great product to me to hear testimonials like every time they screw it up they fix it. It might say responsible company that stands behind their work, but shouldn't we expect that? I am not convinced yet that the LCR is an inferior product, but I'm not convinced it's not either.
And I'm REALLY left cold by the concept of a shoot little disposable firearm a la Chevy Vega. Kinda like, sure it will last forever if you just don't shoot it. Even (or should I say especially) CCW pieces need continual practice. I have no use for a disposable.
.It just doesn't say great product to me to hear testimonials like every time they screw it up they fix it. It might say responsible company that stands behind their work, but shouldn't we expect that? I am not convinced yet that the LCR is an inferior product, but I'm not convinced it's not either.
And I'm REALLY left cold by the concept of a shoot little disposable firearm a la Chevy Vega. Kinda like, sure it will last forever if you just don't shoot it. Even (or should I say especially) CCW pieces need continual practice. I have no use for a disposable.
Last edited:
THANK YOU. I have been trying to put this into words every time someone says " You shouldnt shoot a j-frame that much".
Of all of your guns, your CCW should be shot THE MOST. If the J-frame or LCR or whatever isnt up to it, you need a better CCW. or a heavier steel j-frame. Or a full size 9mm glock. Something. but I just dont think that sacrifice should be made "Yeah its a nice gun I just cant let it function too much".
OldCavSoldier
Member
I agree with the sentiment that one should shoot his/her carry piece. I carry (and do BOOCOO practice at the range) my M60. Love that little J gun!! Also shoot my M642. I like to shoot mid-range .38's for range practice sessions and load for "service" +P loads. Service loads: 125grain Gold Dots or JHP pushed at ~1000 fps.
inherentical
Member
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2007
- Messages
- 753
Might I suggest an alternate solution?
There still remains the physical reality that some guns, whether you like it or not, simply are not intended to (and can't) hold up to thousands of rounds of full-bore loads indefinitely.
The smaller you go, the shorter-lived you go. The lighter you go, same.
Denis
The smaller you go, the shorter-lived you go. The lighter you go, same.
Denis
brassdog
Member
Shame to hear about that for the new revolver.
Read my sig line.
Read my sig line.
Another session on the hill, now 3000 rounds in on this LCR.
It is not being babied. 500-round sessions with only minimal brief breaks of 2 or 3 minutes here & there. Full-bore premium factory +P loads. Still chugging along just fine, and my hand's even starting to get used to it. Worst sign of wear is that the Hogue logo on the grip's backstrap is disappearing.
The thing that many people don't realize is that the concept of a handgun firing 20,000-30,000 rounds during its lifetime is only a fairly recent thing.
At the time the basic S&W revolver action was first developed, the idea was unthinkable. Nobody shot them that much, nobody could either afford to or particularly wanted to. A cop could do his entire career with the same revolver & not put more than 500 rounds through it.
Target shooters were the exception, and the majority of those used fairly light loads that didn't stress the guns too hard.
It's only in the last 25 years or so that police caught on to the idea of stepping up qualifications and practice sessions, and the past 20 years has seen that spill over into the non-cop arena with the proliferation of shooting schools, concealed carry permits, and expanded gun magazine coverage that pushes defensive applications hard.
In line with all that, the demand for power in a featherweight package has driven gunmakers to shrinking dimensions and alternative materials.
It's the market that has created the LCR (and the new S&W equivalent) every bit as much as Ruger has, and any problems in a "reduced" lifespan of that, or any comparable gun, lie in the expectations of the buying public, not the gun.
People just flat can't have it both ways- a 2-ounce gun that will run 40,000 rounds. It's totally unreasonable to expect that a small plastic & aluminum revolver will hold up to the battering, pressures, and parts wear like an all-steel Smith N-Frame or a Ruger GP (or even SP).
If you can't tolerate the size & weight of a gun that CAN hold up to the wear & tear of 15,000+ rounds of decent defensive ammo, and you insist on dropping down in size & weight, something HAS to give.
An alloy frame has less strength to resist stretching under a heavy diet of non-powderpuff loads than a steel frame does. Pound for pound, aluminum just doesn't have the same properties as steel, and wishing won't change that.
The hand in a J-Frame Smith has less than half the bearing surface to interact with the cylinder's ratchet than an N-Frame Smith's hand does. It can't be expected to hold up under wear exactly the same.
A steel framed .357 Smith J can't be expected to stand up side by side next to a steel framed .357 Smith N in longevity. Anyone who expects it to is naive to an exponential degree.
Small guns are compromises. Period.
They're built to offer a certain level of performance combined with a certain level of concealability. They are not intended to be combat arms.
If you want to make the LCR, the Smith version, or any other small revolver or pistol that was DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR CARRY and not for IPSC-level bullet consumption, then you either understand & accept the limitations inherent to the smaller gun, or you adjust yourself to the idea of a larger gun that was designed for heavier use.
Aside from the occasional glitch that may occur with a busted part, it's a matter of understanding the tool and its realistic capabilities.
If I were to buy an LCR (and the way this one's going I very well might), I'd have the same expectations of it that Ruger does- a very lightweight 15-yard five-shot snub revolver that carries easy, shoots hard, and won't be fired a lot.
I would not personally make it my primary gun except in rare circumstances, where I'd consider it a close-in tool. For me, it'd do quite well as a backup, again understanding its limitations. I'd certainly never put 5000 rounds through my own LCR during the rest of my entire life. I wouldn't see a need to.
If you choose to make it your primary, then you're the one who determines its lifespan.
Denis
It is not being babied. 500-round sessions with only minimal brief breaks of 2 or 3 minutes here & there. Full-bore premium factory +P loads. Still chugging along just fine, and my hand's even starting to get used to it. Worst sign of wear is that the Hogue logo on the grip's backstrap is disappearing.
The thing that many people don't realize is that the concept of a handgun firing 20,000-30,000 rounds during its lifetime is only a fairly recent thing.
At the time the basic S&W revolver action was first developed, the idea was unthinkable. Nobody shot them that much, nobody could either afford to or particularly wanted to. A cop could do his entire career with the same revolver & not put more than 500 rounds through it.
Target shooters were the exception, and the majority of those used fairly light loads that didn't stress the guns too hard.
It's only in the last 25 years or so that police caught on to the idea of stepping up qualifications and practice sessions, and the past 20 years has seen that spill over into the non-cop arena with the proliferation of shooting schools, concealed carry permits, and expanded gun magazine coverage that pushes defensive applications hard.
In line with all that, the demand for power in a featherweight package has driven gunmakers to shrinking dimensions and alternative materials.
It's the market that has created the LCR (and the new S&W equivalent) every bit as much as Ruger has, and any problems in a "reduced" lifespan of that, or any comparable gun, lie in the expectations of the buying public, not the gun.
People just flat can't have it both ways- a 2-ounce gun that will run 40,000 rounds. It's totally unreasonable to expect that a small plastic & aluminum revolver will hold up to the battering, pressures, and parts wear like an all-steel Smith N-Frame or a Ruger GP (or even SP).
If you can't tolerate the size & weight of a gun that CAN hold up to the wear & tear of 15,000+ rounds of decent defensive ammo, and you insist on dropping down in size & weight, something HAS to give.
An alloy frame has less strength to resist stretching under a heavy diet of non-powderpuff loads than a steel frame does. Pound for pound, aluminum just doesn't have the same properties as steel, and wishing won't change that.
The hand in a J-Frame Smith has less than half the bearing surface to interact with the cylinder's ratchet than an N-Frame Smith's hand does. It can't be expected to hold up under wear exactly the same.
A steel framed .357 Smith J can't be expected to stand up side by side next to a steel framed .357 Smith N in longevity. Anyone who expects it to is naive to an exponential degree.
Small guns are compromises. Period.
They're built to offer a certain level of performance combined with a certain level of concealability. They are not intended to be combat arms.
If you want to make the LCR, the Smith version, or any other small revolver or pistol that was DESIGNED PRIMARILY FOR CARRY and not for IPSC-level bullet consumption, then you either understand & accept the limitations inherent to the smaller gun, or you adjust yourself to the idea of a larger gun that was designed for heavier use.
Aside from the occasional glitch that may occur with a busted part, it's a matter of understanding the tool and its realistic capabilities.
If I were to buy an LCR (and the way this one's going I very well might), I'd have the same expectations of it that Ruger does- a very lightweight 15-yard five-shot snub revolver that carries easy, shoots hard, and won't be fired a lot.
I would not personally make it my primary gun except in rare circumstances, where I'd consider it a close-in tool. For me, it'd do quite well as a backup, again understanding its limitations. I'd certainly never put 5000 rounds through my own LCR during the rest of my entire life. I wouldn't see a need to.
If you choose to make it your primary, then you're the one who determines its lifespan.
Denis
rswartsell
Member
Denis,
Well said. This is why I own Colt Lawman and Trooper Mk III, S&W 686, steel Kimber, etc. ( no Cobras, Featherweights or Micro-Mini Airweight Nuclear MountainGuns). By the way I also own a Smith Model of 1905 M&P Target mfd 1910 that still accurately shoots target .38 spl 148gr wadcutters. Perhaps you can understand the root of my erroneous thinking that quality firearms should end up as heirlooms and my skepticism that the next generation will be treasuring much of grandpa's old scandium and tupperwear.
My concessions to carry might be bbl length, but I plan to shoot what I carry as much as I can and I reiterate I have no use for a disposable. Everything is a matter of degrees and you haven't gotten to 5,000 yet. I suspect failures in this piece are as likely to be sudden as they are to be gradually noticeable.
Let us know how the little Ruger does for you the rest of the way.
Thanks!
Well said. This is why I own Colt Lawman and Trooper Mk III, S&W 686, steel Kimber, etc. ( no Cobras, Featherweights or Micro-Mini Airweight Nuclear MountainGuns). By the way I also own a Smith Model of 1905 M&P Target mfd 1910 that still accurately shoots target .38 spl 148gr wadcutters. Perhaps you can understand the root of my erroneous thinking that quality firearms should end up as heirlooms and my skepticism that the next generation will be treasuring much of grandpa's old scandium and tupperwear.
My concessions to carry might be bbl length, but I plan to shoot what I carry as much as I can and I reiterate I have no use for a disposable. Everything is a matter of degrees and you haven't gotten to 5,000 yet. I suspect failures in this piece are as likely to be sudden as they are to be gradually noticeable.
Let us know how the little Ruger does for you the rest of the way.
Thanks!
Last edited:
Frankly, being an old traditionalist sort, I was sceptical when the LCR came out.
So far, I'm changing my opinion slowly.
Ruger says the gun should easily do 10,000 or more & the rifling will probably go before anything else does. 5000 is plenty for me to make a determination of longevity.
At ten feet I can put five into six using just the old FBI Sidesteppin' Crouch. That's with no real practice, and using a thumb-on-top hold. Controllable & fast. No need for thousands of rounds of practice with the thing, in the role I'd envision it for myself.
Anybody who'd buy one of these to use as a range toy's nuts! (Not implying that's you. )
Should do four more sessions, weather will determine how soon I can finish up.
I'll get back to you.
Denis
So far, I'm changing my opinion slowly.
Ruger says the gun should easily do 10,000 or more & the rifling will probably go before anything else does. 5000 is plenty for me to make a determination of longevity.
At ten feet I can put five into six using just the old FBI Sidesteppin' Crouch. That's with no real practice, and using a thumb-on-top hold. Controllable & fast. No need for thousands of rounds of practice with the thing, in the role I'd envision it for myself.
Anybody who'd buy one of these to use as a range toy's nuts! (Not implying that's you.
)Should do four more sessions, weather will determine how soon I can finish up.
I'll get back to you.
Denis
I really do not agree with this sentiment. Before I bought my LCR, I read every review I could on it, and there were many of them.
I also found two references to two seperate 10,000 rd +P endurance tests on two seperate LCR's.
I am not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, and I did not buy it with the idea of putting hundreds of rds a week through it, but I and the buying public have the option to choose who to listen to.
You can listen to Ruger, and I believe The American Rifleman did the other test, or you can listen to a few guys on the internet, whom you have never met, and probably said the same thing about those damn plastic garbage glocks 20 years ago.....
I know who I listen to, I bought one.
I also found two references to two seperate 10,000 rd +P endurance tests on two seperate LCR's.
I am not the sharpest pencil in the drawer, and I did not buy it with the idea of putting hundreds of rds a week through it, but I and the buying public have the option to choose who to listen to.
You can listen to Ruger, and I believe The American Rifleman did the other test, or you can listen to a few guys on the internet, whom you have never met, and probably said the same thing about those damn plastic garbage glocks 20 years ago.....
I know who I listen to, I bought one.
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I can tell ya how it happened to me.
Old GI barrel in an old GI pistol. Flame cutting/erosion/heat hardening...pick one...at the area just into the leade. The barrel separated and actually hit a steel target. The bullet was still there...right at the muzzle. The scary thing is that the gun cycled and chambered another round, and was ready to fire. If I hadn't actually seen the barrel bounce off the target, I'd have pulled the trigger.
I agree. I'm not sure where folks got the idea that a tiny, featherlight gun is going to hold up to the same level of use (shooting) that a full-sized, full-weight firearm. Also not sure who originated the idea that putting many thousands of rounds through a sub-compact pistol is a great idea in the first place...DPris said:
rswartsell
Member
In the interets of full disclosure and honesty, I find I do own a small lightweight piece designed with all of the technological advancement of the day with the concealed carry market in mind.
A .38S&W Safety Hammerless "lemon squeezer" mfd 1892, I have shot and will shoot it. I am just as susceptible as anyone to the latest craze I guess. Mea Culpa.
Think it will hold up over time?
A .38S&W Safety Hammerless "lemon squeezer" mfd 1892, I have shot and will shoot it. I am just as susceptible as anyone to the latest craze I guess. Mea Culpa.
Think it will hold up over time?
Last edited:
No one is suggesting that people should avoid shooting a sub-compact gun at all. The point isn't that they can't tolerate being shot, it's that they won't provide the same service life (in terms of round count) that a full-sized, full-weight pistol wil.
A quality pocket gun will easily provide a lifetime of service (or more) if its owner understands that a lifetime of service for a pocket gun doesn't amount to the same round count as a life time of service for a full-sized duty gun.
In other words, when you take your guns to the range, instead of putting several boxes through your "mini-guns" like you do your full-sized pistols, just put a few cylinder or mags full through them.
rswartsell
Member
Jeez John,
Guess I should give up on sarcastic humor. While I'm not saying the LCR is or isn't the equal of the 'ol Smith, I thought a 118 year old still functioning pocket gun might make the point you mention. I like to carry full frame service weapons for familiarity, but I'm trying to show the validity I must admit in the posts of others. Poking fun at my own hide-bound traditionalism if you will.
Guess I should give up on sarcastic humor. While I'm not saying the LCR is or isn't the equal of the 'ol Smith, I thought a 118 year old still functioning pocket gun might make the point you mention. I like to carry full frame service weapons for familiarity, but I'm trying to show the validity I must admit in the posts of others. Poking fun at my own hide-bound traditionalism if you will.
- Status
