Another solution to a non-existant problem.
Actually, no, that's not what it is. It's a
possible solution to a very real problem. That problem is that people want lightweight guns for concealed carry (I've never got this entirely myself, I carry an all steel Browning Hi-Power and I don't even notice the weight, but it seems to bother some people). They also want those lightweight guns to fire potent cartridges. At the same time, they don't want those guns to be beasts to shoot. That's the problem, and it's a real one, since less weight in the gun, means more felt recoil in the hand. If a gun kicks hard enough, it will be downright unpleasant to shoot. If it's unpleasant to shoot, it will tend not to be shot very often. This is a very undesirable state of affairs, since one really should shoot one's carry gun often to maintain one's skill with it.
Smith & Wesson's line of aluminum frame and scandium frame j frame snubbies, certainly fulfill the lightweight and concealable requirements. But face it, with +P loads they are not pleasant to shoot, and as I said, this means they get shot very little, or if they are shot, it's with soft recoiling wadcutters or other light loads. People who don't shoot their carry guns enough also tend to hit their targets less often in real gunfights. This also applies if they do shoot them, but with light loads for the range, and carry them with heavier loads. Back in the '70s, it was noticed among some law enforcement officers that they had a problem hitting the bad guys in gun fights that partly stemmed from their carrying .357s on the street, but qualifying with .38 special loads fired out of the same gun. They hadn't adequately trained themselves to cope with the extra blast and recoil, and it impaired their marksmanship when they shot full house .357 loads in actual gunfights.
This same problem exists with these ultralight snubbies and +P .38 loads. Now Ruger is claiming that their new LCP has less felt recoil than the metal framed revolvers of similar size offered by their competitors. The configuration of the grip is supposedly better at transmitting the recoil impulse to the entire hand, rather than just the web of the hand between the thumb and forefinger. And they're also claiming the slight flex in the polymer frame diffuses the recoil in a way that no hard metal frame will do. The result, they say, is a roughly 50% reduction in felt recoil. Now whether or not the gun lives up to these claims I have no idea. But that is the problem Ruger is attempting to address, and I hope they do it successfully. (And frankly, I'd love to see someone eat into S&W's market share.)
Also, there is another unrelated reason why Ruger should have come up with a polymer frame revolver. With CCW being so popular right now, and permits being easier to get than ever before, S&W and Taurus are selling a
lot of little snubby revolvers. It's a big part of the market, and Ruger very understandably wants a piece of the action. If Ruger introduced just another steel frame or aluminum framed example of the breed, they'd get some market share, certainly, but it would be limited. They can take a bigger bite of the pie with something newer, more innovative, more high-tech, etc. Curiosity alone will attract some buyers. Technology buffs will like having the most modern design and materials. Ruger can make bigger inroads with this gun than they could with just another metal revolver, perceived as essentially just a copy of something other manufacturers have been turning out for the better part of a century.
Those so willing to sneer at this gun ought to bear some of this in mind. If it doesn't come to show mechanical problems that turn buyers away, I think Ruger's got a winner on their hands. It never ceases to amaze me how many people are so ready, even eager to dismiss something untried, and even unconsidered.
