Discussion in 'Handguns: Revolvers' started by KMO, May 21, 2010.
I do not fault anyone who chooses one.
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.
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.
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.
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
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. 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?
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.
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
Just like the Glock. Remember them?
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!
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.
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.
On that note ... have you ever heard of a Trabant? I think you'd get a kick out of it.
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.
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'...
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
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.
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!
I see the plastic frame as a means to give us that $200 .22LR DA wheelgun we've all been crying for.
Separate names with a comma.