New Ruger polymer wheely!
- Thread starter Longbow
- Start date
- Status
It seems like an answer to a problem that I am not asking. Smith has made (albeit with a poorly designed, dangerous lock) a very light (scandium) 38 revolver. It is already so light that I do not want to shoot it.
This Ruger is about the same weight. I will say "no thank you" on that basis alone.
This Ruger is about the same weight. I will say "no thank you" on that basis alone.
I'm fairly certain this is a dupe of some sort, there was a massive thread about this closer to SHOT-time.
jc650
Member
I think its an interesting idea of having a partially polymer construction. It definitely has a modern revolver look to it.
I carry an MP 340 that is pretty light and while not a barrel of fun to shoot, for 30-40 rounds of .38 its not bad at all. These little revolvers really are great for cc and the more options the better imo.
I carry an MP 340 that is pretty light and while not a barrel of fun to shoot, for 30-40 rounds of .38 its not bad at all. These little revolvers really are great for cc and the more options the better imo.
My thoughts:
1. Ugly
2. Ruger is 0/2 on its last 2 pistols for recalls.
3. Ruger claims weight savings...only an ounce and a half on the S&W 638 and it weighs .2 of an ounce more than a 340. The LCR website makes multiple claims of these weight savings, such as "extensive fluting of the cylinder," the "polymer fire control housing" (dumb way of saying that they put all the moving parts in the plastic grip for some reason), and the plastic frame, only to be on par with the weight of S&W carry revolvers which have been tried and true for many decades. If you have to machine a bunch of metal out of a your cylinder just to make it weight as much as a airweight, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with claiming that it is an advantage.
4. Why buy a polymer/aluminum/steel revolver? With no appreciable benefits over current competition models I see no need.
5. I haven't fired one but I find it hard to believe that the trigger is going to be any better than the competition. I have however fired an SP and several GPs, and if the trigger is the same out of a box I will stay with a S&W.
6. Unfortunately for Ruger this is going to be just another in a series of recent flops; those being the .480, .327 magnum (still can't figure this one out...if .38 isn't enough get a .357. If you need the sixth round after you fired 5 you either need practice or a miracle), and the SR-9 and LCP recall debacle.
7. Ugly. Everyone will chastise me for this, but I I didn't know any better and had seen that revolver laying on a shelf and seen the plastic I would have thought, "Gee, Bryco/Jennings must have come back to life and entered the revolver business in partnership with Taurus."
--I like the Black/Redhawk lines, as well as the SP and GP revolvers. I also own a p-89 which I wouldn't give up for anything, but Ruger needs to get out of the gimmick business and just focus on making good firearms.
1. Ugly
2. Ruger is 0/2 on its last 2 pistols for recalls.
3. Ruger claims weight savings...only an ounce and a half on the S&W 638 and it weighs .2 of an ounce more than a 340. The LCR website makes multiple claims of these weight savings, such as "extensive fluting of the cylinder," the "polymer fire control housing" (dumb way of saying that they put all the moving parts in the plastic grip for some reason), and the plastic frame, only to be on par with the weight of S&W carry revolvers which have been tried and true for many decades. If you have to machine a bunch of metal out of a your cylinder just to make it weight as much as a airweight, I think there is something fundamentally wrong with claiming that it is an advantage.
4. Why buy a polymer/aluminum/steel revolver? With no appreciable benefits over current competition models I see no need.
5. I haven't fired one but I find it hard to believe that the trigger is going to be any better than the competition. I have however fired an SP and several GPs, and if the trigger is the same out of a box I will stay with a S&W.
6. Unfortunately for Ruger this is going to be just another in a series of recent flops; those being the .480, .327 magnum (still can't figure this one out...if .38 isn't enough get a .357. If you need the sixth round after you fired 5 you either need practice or a miracle), and the SR-9 and LCP recall debacle.
7. Ugly. Everyone will chastise me for this, but I I didn't know any better and had seen that revolver laying on a shelf and seen the plastic I would have thought, "Gee, Bryco/Jennings must have come back to life and entered the revolver business in partnership with Taurus."
--I like the Black/Redhawk lines, as well as the SP and GP revolvers. I also own a p-89 which I wouldn't give up for anything, but Ruger needs to get out of the gimmick business and just focus on making good firearms.
Last edited:
2oz lighter than a S&W642 which is a proven weapon. A hair lighter than a S&W340 (which beats your hand up pretty good)
Aluminum frame coated with some new age black stuff, SS barrel, SS cylinder. All that leaves just the butt to be made of polymer, big deal.
Going to be a great big flop.
Aluminum frame coated with some new age black stuff, SS barrel, SS cylinder. All that leaves just the butt to be made of polymer, big deal.
Going to be a great big flop.
I am a revolver man and like was said Ruger is 0/2...SR9, LCP. I am going to sit this one out until they have been released and see how well the quality is on it.
I don't like the looks of it and I'm not sure about the concept-though it does offer a very light frame without the high price of scandium alloy. I hope it succeeds in the market place. Just because I may not like it doesn't mean it lacks merits that might appeal to other people. Sometimes innovations in firearm design, real or imagined; new cartridges, needed or redundant and novel accessories, useful or gimmicks, prompts the firearms- oriented public to make new purchases. And new purchases help to keep gun manufacturers prosperous. And healthy gun makers are a good antidote for unhealthy anti-gun propositions.
It will be a flop. I should buy two and stick them in the safe, in 10 years they will be worth double what I paid for them. I saw a NIB Colt 2000 the other day for $900...go figure.
kv501, I couldn't have said it better. All of those reasons are reasons why I don't plan on going anywhere near one of those things, except to possibly see if the trigger is as "different" as they claim it to be.
I cannot imagine forming an opinion without seeing, handling, and shooting one.
If I did not already have a 642, I would likely compare the two before making a choice.
As for appearance, that's in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't like the looks of the Glocks or some other semi-autos, but as they say, "a gun is a tool, ma'am," and those things do sell.
If I did not already have a 642, I would likely compare the two before making a choice.
As for appearance, that's in the eye of the beholder. For example, I don't like the looks of the Glocks or some other semi-autos, but as they say, "a gun is a tool, ma'am," and those things do sell.
I'm curious about it and will handle it when I find one.
Yes, it's sort of ugly, but has an interesting look at the same time. No, it doesn't offer significant weight savings over metal framed snubbies.
But there's something I haven't seen anyone here mention. The polymer frame, according to several reviews I've read, flexes slightly (as all polymer does) and absorbs some of the recoil. Even though it might weigh about the same an one of the rarium framed revolvers, many reviewers are saying it's quite pleasant to shoot.
Yes, it's sort of ugly, but has an interesting look at the same time. No, it doesn't offer significant weight savings over metal framed snubbies.
But there's something I haven't seen anyone here mention. The polymer frame, according to several reviews I've read, flexes slightly (as all polymer does) and absorbs some of the recoil. Even though it might weigh about the same an one of the rarium framed revolvers, many reviewers are saying it's quite pleasant to shoot.
Brian Williams
Moderator Emeritus
From what I understand the main reason behind the polymer construction has to do with the way the gun absorbs recoil. Supposed to be more "pleasant" than an aluminum gun. Isn't it also supposed to have some sort of cam in the fire control system to make the trigger lighter than a typical snub? As others have said, no way I can form an opinion without handling one first. Could be a great gun...
Any thing Ruger makes is good and dependable.
Look at the LCP and the SR9 QUALITY!!!
I am certain the LCR wil be just a good.
One advantage plastc guns over machined aluminum or steel is the cost. More profit in molding the frames as the plastic is pennys. the mold is expensive. But with volume it is recovered. In the long run Ruger makes more $$$$$ and that makes the share holders happier and the Chairman rich.
Look at the LCP and the SR9 QUALITY!!!
I am certain the LCR wil be just a good.
One advantage plastc guns over machined aluminum or steel is the cost. More profit in molding the frames as the plastic is pennys. the mold is expensive. But with volume it is recovered. In the long run Ruger makes more $$$$$ and that makes the share holders happier and the Chairman rich.
Last edited:
I handled one at the shot show. Feels good in the hand then they told me to dry fire it. Personally I hated the trigger. Very heavy at first, then let off abruptly at the end...and looooong. My J's are much better. But I'm a Ruger fan as well as loving Smiths. I like what they are trying and I love my SR9. The recall basher just won't go away. By the way, I was at a local gun show yesterday. A dealer had LCP's there. $350.00. I didn't buy one but they look nice and you can't beat the size. I've just sworn off little bottom feeders thanks to Kahr.
I'd get one except that they're sort of expensive and I have a really nice little Taurus M85SSUL I like a lot that's only a little heavier. I don't know if it'll sell well at that price, but we'll see. I'd like to try that trigger, sounds sweet.
All you Smith and Wesson Ruger bashers must have forgotten about the baby SIGMAs, eh?
Talk about crap.......
All you Smith and Wesson Ruger bashers must have forgotten about the baby SIGMAs, eh?
Talk about crap.......What I like:
-Not made by S&W
-No internal lock
-better trigger (sopposedly)
-better grip angle(sopposedly)
What I dont like:
-Plastic, ugly
-Price (going by MSRP)
First off if they are going to make a plastic gun it had better be $50-$100 less then a Smith or its simply a ripoff.
Second, I wish companies would take all of these innovations and just put them into metal frames. They could have used an aluminum frame and had only 2 oz heavier or so. This goes for all the companies: Glock, Beretta, HK, etc. Many handguns in recent years benefit from improvements in reliability, handling, etc. I just don't see why a plastic frame is necessary! (other than increasing profit margin)
-Not made by S&W
-No internal lock
-better trigger (sopposedly)
-better grip angle(sopposedly)
What I dont like:
-Plastic, ugly
-Price (going by MSRP)
First off if they are going to make a plastic gun it had better be $50-$100 less then a Smith or its simply a ripoff.
Second, I wish companies would take all of these innovations and just put them into metal frames. They could have used an aluminum frame and had only 2 oz heavier or so. This goes for all the companies: Glock, Beretta, HK, etc. Many handguns in recent years benefit from improvements in reliability, handling, etc. I just don't see why a plastic frame is necessary! (other than increasing profit margin)
i agree with most of you............. i'll stay with my s&w model 27 thank you..............................................................
- Status
Similar threads
