rswartsell
Member
Should have used one of these I guess.
LCR broke!
- Thread starter Lord Samwise
- Start date
- Status
Look at it this way- If you want to commute twice a month from New York to LA, you don't use a Piper Cub, you use a Boeing 767.
The Boeing is built for that type of extended regular mileage. The Piper can get you from NY to LA, but if you do it twice a month you'll wear it out long before you wear out the 767.
Does that make the Piper a "disposable" plane? No, it simply means the Piper was designed for relatively inexpensive flying for relatively short hops on a more personal level.
The fact that the LCR was never intended for regular coast to coast runs doesn't automatically mean it's trash.
Denis
The Boeing is built for that type of extended regular mileage. The Piper can get you from NY to LA, but if you do it twice a month you'll wear it out long before you wear out the 767.
Does that make the Piper a "disposable" plane? No, it simply means the Piper was designed for relatively inexpensive flying for relatively short hops on a more personal level.
The fact that the LCR was never intended for regular coast to coast runs doesn't automatically mean it's trash.
Denis
rswartsell
Member
Boy you guys don't let up do you?
Doesn't mean I'd spend over $400.00 on one either. I've got a Safety Hammerless, remember?
Doesn't mean I'd spend over $400.00 on one either. I've got a Safety Hammerless, remember?
I think some of you seem to understand the point, but some seem to be arguing with a strawman.
I do not think any of the LCR advocates would argue that it would hold up just as well as a full framed, full weight, steel version, go back and read the arguements.
One person in possibly another thread stated the expected lifespan at like 500-1000 rds or something....
The point I have been trying to make is I really do not think people "wearing them out" will be a big problem for Ruger or for their owners in the future.
I am a Smith fan as well, but in many ways this little revolver kicks smith's behind, especially the trigger, and I feel some are unfairly dumping on it.
I do not think any of the LCR advocates would argue that it would hold up just as well as a full framed, full weight, steel version, go back and read the arguements.
One person in possibly another thread stated the expected lifespan at like 500-1000 rds or something....
The point I have been trying to make is I really do not think people "wearing them out" will be a big problem for Ruger or for their owners in the future.
I am a Smith fan as well, but in many ways this little revolver kicks smith's behind, especially the trigger, and I feel some are unfairly dumping on it.
rswartsell
Member
phinfan,
My point is and has been throughout the thread that as of yet I do not know what the ultimate verdict on the LCR will be, and neither do you. It is a radical new step in handgun evolution and we have all seen that work out and also fail.
My "strawman" approach is mostly in response to posts that make me think I'm talking to a Ruger salesman. Some good points have been made and I have recognized them. I as other "long timers" have built in resistance to such radical change. I recognize that and will remain conscious of it. But as commendably well done as the verbal arguments in favor have been, they do not replace mass experience over time. I am not opposed to Ruger or the LCR, but skepticism in the right dose can be a healthy thing. If you resent my withholding final judgment, even in the face of such eloquence, so be it.
My point is and has been throughout the thread that as of yet I do not know what the ultimate verdict on the LCR will be, and neither do you. It is a radical new step in handgun evolution and we have all seen that work out and also fail.
My "strawman" approach is mostly in response to posts that make me think I'm talking to a Ruger salesman. Some good points have been made and I have recognized them. I as other "long timers" have built in resistance to such radical change. I recognize that and will remain conscious of it. But as commendably well done as the verbal arguments in favor have been, they do not replace mass experience over time. I am not opposed to Ruger or the LCR, but skepticism in the right dose can be a healthy thing. If you resent my withholding final judgment, even in the face of such eloquence, so be it.
rswartsell,
Witholding judgement on a newly designed pistol so that you can see how it performs over time is a very reasonable approach to this pistol, and in general, and I would never try and say otherwise.
My only quarrel, in this thread and others, is the inferences to the lack of longevity of this guns lifespan. Right now, as you have correctly pointed out, we do not know what will be the general consensus on this gun 5 or more years from now, but to lead people to believe this gun is to be babied, not shot, only carried, or basically "disposable" is unfair imo.
On another point, I am in no way a Ruger salesman, in fact, the LCR is my only one (usually not a big fan of their styling, and the billboard on the barrel). Just recently started to get the itch to jump more into revolvers in general, as the LCR only made a total of two (S&W 042 my other, too pretty to shoot in my twisted opinion).
Witholding judgement on a newly designed pistol so that you can see how it performs over time is a very reasonable approach to this pistol, and in general, and I would never try and say otherwise.
My only quarrel, in this thread and others, is the inferences to the lack of longevity of this guns lifespan. Right now, as you have correctly pointed out, we do not know what will be the general consensus on this gun 5 or more years from now, but to lead people to believe this gun is to be babied, not shot, only carried, or basically "disposable" is unfair imo.
On another point, I am in no way a Ruger salesman, in fact, the LCR is my only one (usually not a big fan of their styling, and the billboard on the barrel). Just recently started to get the itch to jump more into revolvers in general, as the LCR only made a total of two (S&W 042 my other, too pretty to shoot in my twisted opinion).
Lord Samwise
Member
- Joined
- Sep 1, 2009
- Messages
- 57
Wow this thread has become very interesting!
I for one am going to continue to use my LCR as I believe it was intended. As it is my primary CCW I need to practice with it, and it is my intention to shoot 50-100 rounds a month out of it. If it breaks again, I will send it in again. I don't see how that is an unreasonable amount of use for something like this. And eventually if it wears out of the point of uselessness and Ruger no longer will fix it, I may consider a different weapon. But until that happens, here I am. $430 is a lot of money, but it's not so much that I expect it to last 100 years and can be bequeathed to my great great grandchildren. But in all honesty, I wouldn't be that surprised it if was still functioning in that time.
I for one am going to continue to use my LCR as I believe it was intended. As it is my primary CCW I need to practice with it, and it is my intention to shoot 50-100 rounds a month out of it. If it breaks again, I will send it in again. I don't see how that is an unreasonable amount of use for something like this. And eventually if it wears out of the point of uselessness and Ruger no longer will fix it, I may consider a different weapon. But until that happens, here I am. $430 is a lot of money, but it's not so much that I expect it to last 100 years and can be bequeathed to my great great grandchildren. But in all honesty, I wouldn't be that surprised it if was still functioning in that time.
As a person who enjoys sarcastic humor from both ends, I have to say that I've had to be very careful about using it on the web. It's very difficult to recognize without the non-verbal cues that face-to-face conversation provides...
I obviously misinterpreted your post. Sorry about that.
Based on what Denis says Ruger claims, it looks like you'll get about 10 years of service out of it at that level of usage.
That's not bad...
rswartsell
Member
Very good point also John,
I am by nature a user if sarcastic humor. I am sometimes poking fun at my own foibles. Gets lost very easily on the web.
BTW I am equally skeptical and at the same time fascinated with S&W's version of the LCR. I don't think this is a manufacturer oriented question as both have long term reputations for excellence.
Will they turn out to be excellent short term/limited usage alternatives? Will they eventually prove flawed to a significant degree? I don't know.
One point that has not yet been discussed is price point. I am assuming that the replacement of forged/investment casted parts with injection molded ones results in a truly significant savings in the manufacturing cost just as previous changes from billet or bar stock machined and hand fitted did. Is this savings being passed on to the consumer equitably for the trade off in longevity? Are the raw materials also significantly cheaper? Again, I don't know.
What will happen with secondary markets for these products? Will they be able to be resold with any degree of confidence or will common experience absolutely kill any resale value from lack of reliable knowledge of their history? Again it is yet to be determined.
To revisit the price point question, Ruger or any other pioneer is in the unique position of deciding on a strategy for recouping development/tooling/startup costs on an unknown proposition. How long a run? How many units? All unknowns. They had to decide whether to recoup these costs on a "front loaded" (charge more from the beginning) or a "back loaded" (charge somewhat less to recoup over a greater period of time) basis. Front loaded is safer if you don't know how long you have and back loaded is better to generate "buzz" and get the thing rolling. What did they decide? No-one likes being an unpaid "beta tester" only to find out that if they had waited a more fine tuned product is now available cheaper.
Sorry to seem such a wet blanket but Ruger has given us a lot to think about. Something they made a habit of when Bill Ruger was alive.
I am by nature a user if sarcastic humor. I am sometimes poking fun at my own foibles. Gets lost very easily on the web.
BTW I am equally skeptical and at the same time fascinated with S&W's version of the LCR. I don't think this is a manufacturer oriented question as both have long term reputations for excellence.
Will they turn out to be excellent short term/limited usage alternatives? Will they eventually prove flawed to a significant degree? I don't know.
One point that has not yet been discussed is price point. I am assuming that the replacement of forged/investment casted parts with injection molded ones results in a truly significant savings in the manufacturing cost just as previous changes from billet or bar stock machined and hand fitted did. Is this savings being passed on to the consumer equitably for the trade off in longevity? Are the raw materials also significantly cheaper? Again, I don't know.
What will happen with secondary markets for these products? Will they be able to be resold with any degree of confidence or will common experience absolutely kill any resale value from lack of reliable knowledge of their history? Again it is yet to be determined.
To revisit the price point question, Ruger or any other pioneer is in the unique position of deciding on a strategy for recouping development/tooling/startup costs on an unknown proposition. How long a run? How many units? All unknowns. They had to decide whether to recoup these costs on a "front loaded" (charge more from the beginning) or a "back loaded" (charge somewhat less to recoup over a greater period of time) basis. Front loaded is safer if you don't know how long you have and back loaded is better to generate "buzz" and get the thing rolling. What did they decide? No-one likes being an unpaid "beta tester" only to find out that if they had waited a more fine tuned product is now available cheaper.
Sorry to seem such a wet blanket but Ruger has given us a lot to think about. Something they made a habit of when Bill Ruger was alive.
rswartsell
Member
Denis,
And the old Safety Hammerless won't stomach modern .38 spl +p either. Always a tradeoff, always fitting the tool to the task.
And the old Safety Hammerless won't stomach modern .38 spl +p either. Always a tradeoff, always fitting the tool to the task.
Stainz
Member
I shot an LCR yesterday for the first time - it belonged to a range-friend. I didn't check his ammo, 125gr JHPs, but the GA Arms +P 158gr LHPSWC rounds of mine we shot had a bulge ~1/3rd the way up from the rim. This means the chambers are over-sized. That's normal as the 'black powder standard' in most .45 Colts. Unfortunately, it was also present in my Ruger .32 H&RM SP-101 and SSM. That small brass was 'overworked' in resizing - that lowered the number of times you could reload to a few instead of fifty plus. I sold the other Rugers. My 642-2 and other S&W .38/.357M don't do that. Obviously, if you can 'see' the bulge, it is substantial. I'll try to measure the OD later today. In the .32 H&RM case example, it grew from .334" to .338" - not a big difference - until you consider the scale.
I was impressed with the trigger. With the owner's 125gr JHP ammo, it was 'comfortable' to shoot - but the +P 158gr LHPSWCs were 'too much'. The gun just felt 'unsafe' - it wasn't so much the recoil - obviously, more of a slap than my 642. I don't have the confidence in it's longevity with those +P GA Arms 158gr LHPSWC rounds. Seeing the case bulge afterwards didn't help my opinion. I've shot >1,000 of them from my 642 - it has a kick, but feels as normal as it does with my mild 125gr plinkers, shooting-wise. It's hard to explain... I just didn't feel comfortable after the lite loads, much less the hotter rounds. I looked it over twice... the trigger was really that good, however.
Whatever your feeling about Ruger firearms, a marque I had at one time many varied examples of, this composite hybrid style bears close scrutiny, particularly with warmer loads. I would think that 148gr full wadcutters, actually target rounds, would be a good choice for defense with the LCR. Take my remarks with a grain of salt as I divested my revolver collection of Rugers in favor of fewer S&Ws some two years back. My 642 instills a better sense of operator safety here, but that's me. I won't be buying an LCR - or the S&W variant, when it becomes available. The 642 is a known quantity here. The LCR did have a great trigger... but I think I said that. It fit the Mika pocket holster made for my 642, too. Good luck if you have - or get - one.
Stainz
I was impressed with the trigger. With the owner's 125gr JHP ammo, it was 'comfortable' to shoot - but the +P 158gr LHPSWCs were 'too much'. The gun just felt 'unsafe' - it wasn't so much the recoil - obviously, more of a slap than my 642. I don't have the confidence in it's longevity with those +P GA Arms 158gr LHPSWC rounds. Seeing the case bulge afterwards didn't help my opinion. I've shot >1,000 of them from my 642 - it has a kick, but feels as normal as it does with my mild 125gr plinkers, shooting-wise. It's hard to explain... I just didn't feel comfortable after the lite loads, much less the hotter rounds. I looked it over twice... the trigger was really that good, however.
Whatever your feeling about Ruger firearms, a marque I had at one time many varied examples of, this composite hybrid style bears close scrutiny, particularly with warmer loads. I would think that 148gr full wadcutters, actually target rounds, would be a good choice for defense with the LCR. Take my remarks with a grain of salt as I divested my revolver collection of Rugers in favor of fewer S&Ws some two years back. My 642 instills a better sense of operator safety here, but that's me. I won't be buying an LCR - or the S&W variant, when it becomes available. The 642 is a known quantity here. The LCR did have a great trigger... but I think I said that. It fit the Mika pocket holster made for my 642, too. Good luck if you have - or get - one.
Stainz
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
Things break if they're used enough. Let's look at a few facts.
First...Let's face it. Shooting a gun is bad for it. It's abuse...even though it was designed to shoot. Considering the pressures and stresses involved even in a mild cartridge like the .38 Special, I'm surprised that some of the smaller ones hold up as well as they do.
Second...The more you shoot it, the closer it gets to failure. Like the human body...guns start the trip to death from the instant they take their first breath...firing the first round...and like the human body...the more you abuse it, the earlier it breaks down.
Third...The greater the stress you place on any machine, the faster it hurtles down the path to destruction. i.e .38 Special vs .357 Magnum in identical platforms i.e. the K-Frame Smith.
Fourth...The more massive the platform, the better it will withstand abuse with a given stress level. i.e .357 Magnum in the K-frame vs the N-frame Smith. Conversely, the less massive the platfiorm, the earlier abuse will show itself. Just a physical reality, and not a slam on a favored revolver.
In light of the physical and mechanical factors stated above, it's long been my habit to maintain at least two of a given platform if I intend to carry that platform...and in some...more than two.
One of them, I shoot enough to prove the gun's reliability, and rarely shoot it more than that...other than the ocasional, limited retest to insure that it's still up to the task. The others, I use for practice and refamiliarization whenever I decide to switch carry platforms. i.e from 1911 to revolver, and back.
Expensive? Sure...but what is your life worth? I don't place complete faith in anything because anything is subject to failure. Your carry gun could fire the next three rounds, and fall apart on the fourth. Using it for practice and beater duty hastens that ultimate end. In the final analysis, it's not about guarantees. It's about increasing and decreasing the odds.
First...Let's face it. Shooting a gun is bad for it. It's abuse...even though it was designed to shoot. Considering the pressures and stresses involved even in a mild cartridge like the .38 Special, I'm surprised that some of the smaller ones hold up as well as they do.
Second...The more you shoot it, the closer it gets to failure. Like the human body...guns start the trip to death from the instant they take their first breath...firing the first round...and like the human body...the more you abuse it, the earlier it breaks down.
Third...The greater the stress you place on any machine, the faster it hurtles down the path to destruction. i.e .38 Special vs .357 Magnum in identical platforms i.e. the K-Frame Smith.
Fourth...The more massive the platform, the better it will withstand abuse with a given stress level. i.e .357 Magnum in the K-frame vs the N-frame Smith. Conversely, the less massive the platfiorm, the earlier abuse will show itself. Just a physical reality, and not a slam on a favored revolver.
In light of the physical and mechanical factors stated above, it's long been my habit to maintain at least two of a given platform if I intend to carry that platform...and in some...more than two.
One of them, I shoot enough to prove the gun's reliability, and rarely shoot it more than that...other than the ocasional, limited retest to insure that it's still up to the task. The others, I use for practice and refamiliarization whenever I decide to switch carry platforms. i.e from 1911 to revolver, and back.
Expensive? Sure...but what is your life worth? I don't place complete faith in anything because anything is subject to failure. Your carry gun could fire the next three rounds, and fall apart on the fourth. Using it for practice and beater duty hastens that ultimate end. In the final analysis, it's not about guarantees. It's about increasing and decreasing the odds.
RonBernert
Member
I would have bet money that the hot discussion on this one would have been the guy carrying the snubbie with pink grips..... Man, I would have lost on that one!!
rswartsell
Member
1911,
You posted on another thread that you have 1911's that are in the many hundreds of thousands for round counts with some parts (i.e. barrel) being replaced. We are aware that the LCR is not intended to be a 1911 but everything is a matter of degrees. I think it reasonable to question whether the LCR as a firearms innovation is to too large a degree susceptible to wear to be considered a success at changing the paradigm, or even if it is a truly better alternative to previous platforms for whatever application.
Like all truly new guns, with increasing numbers coming into play there are now beginning to be reports of problems. One current thread here is about an example with excessive end shake right out of the box. I continue to maintain that the jury will be out on whether or not the gun 1) exhibits wear at an acceptable rate 2) might demonstrate a significant design flaw with increased numbers being put in service 3) can be considered as dependable in comparison with like platforms. I think Colt failed in this regard with the Lightning. Suggesting that would be improved by buying two Lightnings might just double your frustration.
Other questions such as comparative value at current pricing are still to be answered with physics lessons being of limited value other than perhaps setting realistic expectations.
With all due respect (and I have alot for your previous posts and obvious knowledge) while you might assist our meager ability to set our own expectations, until you have the experience with the LCR that you obviously have with the 1911 and no doubt other guns, the LCR might prove to be a landmark development or a failed attempt.
You posted on another thread that you have 1911's that are in the many hundreds of thousands for round counts with some parts (i.e. barrel) being replaced. We are aware that the LCR is not intended to be a 1911 but everything is a matter of degrees. I think it reasonable to question whether the LCR as a firearms innovation is to too large a degree susceptible to wear to be considered a success at changing the paradigm, or even if it is a truly better alternative to previous platforms for whatever application.
Like all truly new guns, with increasing numbers coming into play there are now beginning to be reports of problems. One current thread here is about an example with excessive end shake right out of the box. I continue to maintain that the jury will be out on whether or not the gun 1) exhibits wear at an acceptable rate 2) might demonstrate a significant design flaw with increased numbers being put in service 3) can be considered as dependable in comparison with like platforms. I think Colt failed in this regard with the Lightning. Suggesting that would be improved by buying two Lightnings might just double your frustration.
Other questions such as comparative value at current pricing are still to be answered with physics lessons being of limited value other than perhaps setting realistic expectations.
With all due respect (and I have alot for your previous posts and obvious knowledge) while you might assist our meager ability to set our own expectations, until you have the experience with the LCR that you obviously have with the 1911 and no doubt other guns, the LCR might prove to be a landmark development or a failed attempt.
Last edited:
1911Tuner
Moderator Emeritus
I appreciate that sentiment, and though I don't have a lot of experience with the LCR, I do have pretty extensive experience with guns of the same class...i.e small-framed, lightweight revolvers in .38Special caliber...and they don't hold up to hard use as well as larger, heavier guns that are chambered for the same cartridge. Given the almost exclusive useage of the more intense +P ammunition these days...the ultimate demise of such guns is hastened along. THe K-framed Smith revolvers chambered for .357 Magnum are perfect examples. A steady diet of the real deal will loosen them up fairly rapidly, but they'll last a lifetime when fired with standard pressure .38 Special. That's not a theory. That's a physical and mechanical reality.
As I observed in the earlier post...shooting a gun is bad for it, mechanically speaking Shooting it a lot is more bad for it. Shooting it a lot with more intense ammunition is even moreso. AN analogy that I've often used is your passenger car. With care, under normal use...use that it was engineered for...it will last a couple hundred thousand miles. Try to make a trip from Asheville, NC to the Mississippi River with the engine at redline, and you probably won't get there.
These little guns were designed to be carried.
rswartsell
Member
Sorry 1911 I was editing my post when you replied. You must be a pretty good fast draw artist too and I need to write in Word, then cut and paste. I will say you make a very good point, I think you see mine also.
The above is true whether dry-firing or live-firing. Moreover, snap-snapping-away as opposed to smoothly squeezing the trigger when dry-firing can do additional damage in addition to just racking up the number of dry-fire trigger pulls.
IMO, you get a better trigger with a trigger job, and a better gun by keeping dry-firing to a minimum.
Premium Black Hills 125-grain JHP+P. Figured if the LCR was rated for +P, might as well go for it. If anything will break this gun in 5000 rounds, this load'll do it.
Not much fun, but the LCR wasn't designed to be fun & my hand & wrist are getting used to it.
Used others for start-up accuracy testing, those will be repeated at the end for comparison, if the gun makes it through.
Denis
Not much fun, but the LCR wasn't designed to be fun & my hand & wrist are getting used to it.
Used others for start-up accuracy testing, those will be repeated at the end for comparison, if the gun makes it through.
Denis
- Status
