Ruger LCR .357 Magnum

[KevininPa]

I am not a fan of automatic cartridges in revolvers, particularly lightweight revolvers with heavy recoil. I've seen too many reports of crimp jump in 9mm LCRs to be interested in owning one. (Heavy steel revolvers shooting .45 ACP are a different story.)

As of so far, after four hundred or so rounds, no problems whatsoever, including crimp jump.

 

[KodeFore]

I shot a buddies lcr 357. He thought it kicked to hard let me finish off the box. I thought it was stout but very manageable. I was very impressed with guns accuracy. It stung a little bit but the rubber grip and polymer frame are great at soaking up the recoil. I think for sure ita the softest 357 snub I have ever shot. I would gladly scoop one up if the right deal came along even ithough I mostly shoot semiautos these days.

 

[derek45]

I went with the 38 special version.

Loaded up the Dillon 650 and got to work.

It's a difficult little gun to shoot, but with practice, it's very fast and accurate.

put some HOGUE grips on it.

 

[Project355]

I was thinking about it a little .. one thing I don't like about the LCR line is no parts are sold. They're ALL factory only except the grip screw.

 

[reverseturn]

... What is your opinion of the best .38 Special +P load for self defense?

After much research, for a short barrel revolver I settled on .38 special target wadcutters, lighter recoil, adequate penetration and a cutting edge for a better wound channel over a more aerodynamic bullet profile. Out of that 1 7/8" length barrel hollow point expansion is iffy though i understand Federal HST's and Speer short barrel gold dots are supposed to work quite well. I have the .38 LCR and it is a pretty good gun. As many have mentioned recoil from other than wadcutter loads the recoil is not fun. If I was making buying the decision today I would get the .357 version for the extra weight but still shoot the .38's wadcutters. If I had the 3" barrel version I might rethink that load. BTW: If money was no object I'd go for a Kimber K6 for the extra round and a little more weight over the 357 LCR.

 

[Confederate]

The Charter Mag Pug is a good revolver...frame size is basically the the same a SP101, Colt D frame .. they actually use the same holster ... it is just lighter than the SP101
View attachment 961999

I've always been ambivalent about the Charter Arms Pug .44 Special. The sold frame was a great idea, but the crane size always struck me as a bit weak. The stainless ones I had in the 80s would bind when they got hot. (I assume that Charter Arms fixed it in its present iteration.) The Bulldog looks like a very well designed gun, but I wonder about its longevity. Would it go past 5,000 rounds with no problem? Has any gun writer or power user ever tried?


Ruger Security-Six is sleek and has a great a balance.


Ruger Match Champion is more easily carried than the 686.

As for .38+P being better than .357, well, it's a lot easier to shoot and that's better than shooting poorly with a more powerful .357. I personally don't think .357 is worth shooting in anything less than a 4" revolver.

Even from a short barrel, the power of a .357 is phenomenal. The .38 +P may be better for any one of a number of reasons, but the power of the .357 being equal to the .38+P isn't one of them.

The other issue with the .357 revolvers is the price is much higher than .38+P revolvers. I've seen .38 LCR's going for under 350, but the 357's are at least $200 more.

Probably because the .357 has to be built to handle much greater pressures. I've always wondered how many hot .357s can be shot through the .357 LCRs. I owned one for about a week, but it was defective. Ruger (amazingly!) said it wasn't manufacturing the LCR and told me I would have to wait a year or so until they cranked up the equipment to start making them again. They resolved the situation by giving me an SP101 and paying for the paperwork. So I think I did quite well. But I wonder to this day how durable the LCRs are.

Why are you upset at Ruger because of their barrel length? Do you think they are doing it just to tick you off? Did you think they were building guns just for you, and you're upset that they didn't consult with you first because you know more about guns than they do? That's what it sounds like. By the way, Ruger lists their barrel length as 1.87". Also by the way, S&W's 38 Special J-frames have a 1.875" barrel, and the 357 Magnum J-frames are 2.125". The longer 2.125" allows them to use a slightly longer ejection rod than the 1.875" barrels. You should contact Ruger directly because you clearly know more about snubby revolvers and what people should or should not want than they do.

I'm upset by many of Ruger's business decisions, and yes, they should consult with me because I would make better decisions. Case in point: a friend called me up in the early 80s and told me about Ruger's decision to produce its .357 Maximum. After a few minutes I said, "I don't think it'll work. The flame cutting will be excessive and it'll leech the carbon out of the steel in the forcing cone." Which is exactly what happened. Was I some super duper genius? Nope, because others thought the same thing. And it didn't take long for our fears to be realized.

It was just old fashioned horse sense. And I know what law enforcement wants in guns because it's what I want, and I know that given a choice, most people don't want revolvers with non-existent barrels. You have to have enough twist in the lands and grooves to produce both velocity and accuracy, and shortening a barrel below 2.5 inches doesn't make sense because it fails to make the gun more concealable or significantly lighter. And many of my friends in law enforcement agree. What advantage does shrinking the barrel of a gun that's made of space age materials offer, especially in .357? The LCR is specifically made to fire 110gr or 125gr JHPs. Do you know what the blast of a .357 125gr JHP is like? Do you want to fire it in your coat pocket? What possible advantage is a1.82-inch barrel to anyone other than a poker player?

When Ruger and S&W decided to make all of their .357 medium frame revolvers with underlug barrels, they relegated their use to mostly the range. People who hiked, biked, camped and fished had to find older Colts, S&Ws, Rugers and Taurus revolvers or current 5-shot revolvers for personal protection. Or they could use a 9mm or .40 automatic, but many like the .357 and want it in a 4-inch barrel.

So yeah, it's preference. And Ruger has made some horrible business decisions. I don't have to worry much because I have a bunch of Ruger Security-Six and Speed-Six revolvers, which are what many prefer when doing outdoor activities. The S&W Model 66/65/19/13s also are still preferred by many over guns with underlug barrels. But lately, S&W has released new lighter models of medium frame .357s, and I expect them to do quite well. Ruger, on the other hand, needs to release a GP100 with a lighter, skinnier barrel for those who carry more than they shoot.

--