Polymer Revolvers, Trend or Gimmick?

Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by KMO, May 21, 2010.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. KMO

    KMO Member

    Joined:
    May 21, 2010
    Messages:
    134
    Location:
    No. Arizona
    I was looking at Ruger's polymer revolver, mostly out of curiosity, and then heard that both Taurus and S & W are coming out with their own polymer wheel guns. The light weight is a great selling feature, but what will the future be for these plastic revolvers? Is it wise to sit back, wait, & watch, or jump in and be a trend-setter?
     
  2. stu454

    stu454 Member

    Joined:
    Dec 21, 2009
    Messages:
    112
    Location:
    Atlanta
    I don't see the advantages so I would vote 'Gimmick'.

    I do not fault anyone who chooses one.

    But...
    1-they're not significantly lighter than other pocket revolvers
    2-they have metal components so they are no more resistant to rust

    They're cool and all but I don't get it. 13 oz .38 Spl? Yawn. Now if it was less than 10 oz they'd be on to something.

    If someone makes some good points maybe I'll change my mind.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2010
  3. shockwave

    shockwave Member

    Joined:
    Jan 8, 2010
    Messages:
    1,182
    Location:
    Florida
    From the reviews of the Ruger and preliminary reports of the S&W as conveyed in Hangunner magazine, the polymer frame absorbs some of the recoil that an all-metal frame delivers directly to the hand. So that the plastic compensates a bit for the reduction in weight, making for a better shooting experience. The only way to determine this, of course, will be in one's one personal testing.
     
  4. rswartsell

    rswartsell Member

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,092
    Location:
    North Carolina
    Cost reduction being marketed as improvement IMHO, and not enough of the savings being passed to the customer to this point.
     
  5. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    Ding ding ding ding!

    Would I buy the things for $250? Hell yes. As a frequent pocket revolver carrier, I'd love to have a few semi-disposable, reliable carry pieces. But for the price of a nice one? Hell no. I like my XD, too, but I wouldn't pay $1500 for it.
     
  6. bflobill_69

    bflobill_69 Member

    Joined:
    May 30, 2008
    Messages:
    305
    Location:
    Northcentral, AZ
    more weight, less recoil... I have fired the LCR with wadcutters (which are a very light load) and the recoil is really evident.

    I was suprised how much I liked the trigger on the LCR - much smoother than I expected... I have been spoiled by the smooth/linear S&W triggers

    Its not a gimmick, but I will stick with my heavy steel revolvers, I just seem to enjoy them more.

    Bflobill69
     
  7. Dimis

    Dimis Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,558
    Location:
    Delaware
    i own an LCR and i surely didnt pay 1500 for it

    in my experience compairing directly to a smith 36 the LCR recoils less than even the heavier smith but i understand recoil is subjective

    i didnt see the LCR as a gimmick maybe everyone jumping onboard after that is a gimmick i think smith and taurus are rushing models out due to rugers success

    pictures of the taurus poly revolvers are hidious and they weigh more according to the specs

    the relocated cylinder latch and price of the smith is enough to RUN the other way

    asking if its a gimmick is like saying "are convertables in any other color than red a gimmick?" not really its different for everyone and maybe some wont like the poly revolvers but some of us do

    $400-$500 isnt that bad for a revolver these days new and id rather use that for CCW than a $1000 smith anyday because IF you ever have to use it it will be put through alot during its evedence stages with the PD anf if you get it back it may not be in a favorable condition

    as for rust the only parts of the LCR that are steel are the barrel and cylinder and they are treated fairly well

    now the new .357 LCR im not sure about being corrosion resistant because more steel was used

    asking to buy anything for $250 NEW these days is a joke unless you get a true throw away (i know i know gunbroker etc but im talking new in an actual store you CANNOT find a new S&W for that)

    i remember when glock hit the market and these same thoughts were discussed but i dont see people minding to pay up to $700 for a new glock
     
  8. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    That was a comparison of an XD to a higher-end steel .45. The LCR costs as much as, or more than, I paid for a couple of nicer Smith snubbies.

    Yeah, but a $400 Smith works great, too.:rolleyes: The point is that, if Ruger can make a cheaper revolver that works well, from plastic and some easy-to-make metal parts, then I want to BUY the thing for cheaper than a revolver that costs a good deal more to produce. There's no particular benefit to ME if a company can make their product for a fraction of the cost, but the price is the same as the nicer competition.

    Did you read my post, or just pull out a couple of numbers?

    I'm saying that, to buy a plastic revolver that supposedly costs a lot less to make than, say, a 642, then I want to pay a lot less for it than for a 642. $299 would be my top end. Otherwise, why would I buy it? Because it makes me feel warm and fuzzy to know that Ruger is making more money on their gun than Smith does, at my expense?:rolleyes:

    Like I said, I like my XD45, but I wouldn't pay the same price for it as I would for a nice 1911, because I expect, as a consumer, to see some benefit from the cost savings of a plastic gun. If I buy the product that costs less to make, I expect to pay less for it. I might pay $20 for a great bottle of Viognier, but I sure as hell wouldn't pay $20 for non-vintage jug wine.

    I'm not a snob: I'm willing to pay more and get something higher-end, or pay less and get something cheap-to-make. I just don't care to pay for high-end, but get cheap-to-make.
     
    Last edited: May 21, 2010
  9. Dimis

    Dimis Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,558
    Location:
    Delaware
    AB dont take it to heart buddy i was making the point that you cant buy ANYTHING new for that unless your asking for a junk gun which the rugers smiths colts etc are not in that catagory

    and you either bought them new 30 years ago or bought used which was exactly my point also the $1500 price tag could be slapped on many smith models these days and i alot of people wouldnt bat an eyelash ive seen 686s go in 900-1100 range whats 400 more anyway lol

    sure you can buy used no problem with that but buying used asks alot of an unknowing purchaser you have to examine the piece with major screwtany and i personly dont want the hastle of returning a used gun or trying to get a refund because i missed something or worse yet being stuck with a gun that just plain doesnt work
     
  10. Jubjub

    Jubjub Member

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2004
    Messages:
    788
    Gimmick, definitely.

    Just like the Glock. Remember them?
     
  11. oasis618

    oasis618 Member

    Joined:
    Nov 26, 2009
    Messages:
    491
    Location:
    Tacoma, WA
    Probably a gimmick but it worked on me...but I love my LCR CT!!! :D
     
  12. kenno

    kenno Member

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2010
    Messages:
    238
    Location:
    Region 10
    Yeah that Glock thing I bought in 1991 because it fired every time like a 1911, Yeah,,,,, Kept it cause it fired with 99.999% of the ammo I shoved in it, unlike the 191A1.
    Plastic aint pretty, which I hate. Life is beutiful.
    You gotta be breathing to be an art critic.
    You must be breathing to be an art critic, don't buy something you do not have 100% faith in.
    Place your money,,make your bet!
     
  13. Nushif

    Nushif Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,082
    Location:
    Corvallis, OR
    So spot on. I really do thin that polymers are going to give the industry a bit of a changeing direction, which whether bad or good, still means we're all going to have to adapt to a new style/ that being said a good alloy will keep pace with a good polymer.

    The question of the future will be: "Alloy or Polymer."

    "Steel or Polymer" in a couple of years will be an obsolete question, IMNSHO.
     
  14. Guillermo

    Guillermo member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,346
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    since there is no polymer revolver yet the question is moot
     
  15. NotSoFast

    NotSoFast Member

    Joined:
    Jun 26, 2008
    Messages:
    419
    Location:
    Bay Area, California
    I would think they would tend to be more sensitive to recoil than a pistol. I'll stick with a steel frame, especially in the smaller frame, shorter barrel models.
     
  16. Guillermo

    Guillermo member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,346
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    are you guys talking about the ALUMINUM frame LCR?
     
  17. Nushif

    Nushif Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,082
    Location:
    Corvallis, OR
    Well, most people do call them polymer revolvers these days, I'm pretty damn sure the gist of it is that the "partial polymer revolver with aluminum body and firing mechanism" (quite a mouthful) is here to stay.

    *le nod*

    Alternatively I do like my little "processed carbon rich pig iron" Detective Special more than my "partial polymer revolver with aluminum body and firing mechanism" LCR, but that's entirely a "psychological response to external stimulation to which internal cues alter the chemical balance of neural receptors" thing.
     
  18. Guillermo

    Guillermo member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,346
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    calling the LCR a polymer gun is like saying your car is made of paint. Yes, you SEE the paint but it has very little to do with the structure of the car.
     
  19. Nushif

    Nushif Member

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Messages:
    3,082
    Location:
    Corvallis, OR
    Relax, I own one myself, but people do call them polymer revolvers. And that's what people are talking about here.

    On that note ... have you ever heard of a Trabant? I think you'd get a kick out of it.
     
  20. snooperman

    snooperman Member

    Joined:
    May 4, 2009
    Messages:
    2,143
    No, I do not think it is a "Gimmick"...

    S&W has a new model coming out soon and so does Taurus that is similar to the Ruger LCR. I look at it as a way of making the gun lighter in weight while reducing recoil. My Ruger LCR has the best trigger of all my snub nose guns and recoils less than my old Colt detective that weighs 8 ounces more. I believe Ruger is onto something that would not in my mind qualify as "gimmick". That said, only time itself will determine whether it is worthy option that will have a lasting appeal.
     
  21. UpTheIrons

    UpTheIrons Member

    Joined:
    Feb 28, 2009
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    South-Central Texas
    Well, considering that if you remove the polymer of the LCR, you have no way to hold it effectively, I'd have to disagree with your comparison.

    I see plenty of cars that work quite well without paint. Be kinda hard to shoot a revolver without a grip or something to hold the trigger/springs/hammer in place.

    I'm just sayin'...
     
  22. Dimis

    Dimis Member

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2008
    Messages:
    1,558
    Location:
    Delaware
    i do see partialy your point but no gun is made 100% of polymer glocks have metal parts too but they are POLYMER autos so symantics of the upper half being aluminum is a moot point indeed its a polymer revolver

    the lower half is polymer its not a coating or "paint" its thru and thru polymer

    i love mine and cant wait to see the .357 hit actual storefronts
     
  23. ArmedBear

    ArmedBear Member

    Joined:
    Sep 8, 2005
    Messages:
    23,171
    If you think a 642 (with which the LCR directly competes) costs $1500, you are smoking some really good **** (or I will sell you as many as you want). It's 400 and change, same as the Ruger is, around here.

    A 686 isn't $1500, either, but regardless, it doesn't compete with the LCR.

    The little metal spaceframe inside the polymer shell is a HELL of a lot cheaper to make than a revolver where the frame is exposed, because the Ruger block of metal can be very, very ugly, with almost no fit and finish required, and still be acceptable. An all-metal gun has to be finished. Molding plastic is REALLY cheap and easy, and apart from the cylinder, that's the only part of the LCR that has to look finished.

    Have you ever taken a rough, unfinished revolver frame and barrel from the machine shop, and finished them so that they will look pretty when they're blued? I have. It's a royal PITA. A bare stainless gun or a clearcoated alloy gun require the same work.

    Ruger figured out a way that they can avoid doing all that work, by surrounding the frame with plastic. More power to them. But as a customer, I want to see some benefit to me, in the form of a dramatically lower price than something that I know from personal experience takes a lot more to turn into a finished revolver.

    So regardless of what surrounds the cylinder, the LCR costs a hell of a lot less to make than an SP101, a Model 60, or an Airweight J-frame. As a customer, I want to buy it for a lot less.

    When I can get a polymer snubbie that costs $250-300 instead of the $400-500 that is standard for guns like Airweights, I'll be interested. There is no OTHER reason to buy one, that I can see. They're not lighter, they're not stronger, and they won't outlast modern metal alloys. So they'd better give me something, and that would be cheaper. It's pretty simple.
     
  24. Guillermo

    Guillermo member

    Joined:
    Feb 20, 2008
    Messages:
    6,346
    Location:
    Austin, Texas
    LOL

    Okay..you found a car of which the paint is structural

    That is funny

    As to my point...the frame is metal, the cylinder is metal, the barrel is metal and there are a bunch of metal parts inside, including a cool ball bearing!
     
  25. Fishslayer

    Fishslayer Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2010
    Messages:
    1,974
    Location:
    People's Republik
    If they're touting the cheaper-to-produce plastic frame as an "improvement" that merits a price increase, then I say not even a gimmick.

    I see the plastic frame as a means to give us that $200 .22LR DA wheelgun we've all been crying for.:cool:
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice