Ruger LCR First Sighting.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Aside from oddball looks, when I see an LCR online, I see lighter weight, strength for +P loads, an allegedly super-smooth trigger pull and soft-shooting, low-recoil polymer frame construction.

Makes me wonder what a GP100 with the same construction, a 7-shot cylinder, an 8 1/2-lb trigger pull and a carry weight of 25 oz would look like.



(ps. here's the ultimate traditionalist's dilema: a polymer GP100 in .44 special... ;) )
 
...and soft-shooting, low-recoil polymer frame construction.
Click to expand...

What polymer frame construction? If you take off the stocks all there is, is a small stub to hold the coil mainspring. There isn't enough polymer in the whole platform to have much affect on recoil. The stocks have some features that might help with felt recoil, but they can be duplicated in S&W or Taurus products.
 
sidheshooter, the GP100 would require a radical redesign to be built like the LCR.

The design philosophy has more in common with the Colt 1851 Navy than it does with the GP100.
 
Bear,

True. Of course, the LCR needed a radical redesign to be built like an LCR... I'm talking about a new model of weight-saving revolver in a larger frame.

Are we going to see more revolvers with this type of design? Ruger typically likes to get mileage out of each new design idea that they come up with...

Old Fuff,

I defer to your expertese. I've read that the LCR recoil is softer than other super light revolvers, but I guess we'll all find out when they get out into the market in larger amounts.
 
I'm talking about a new model of weight-saving revolver in a larger frame.
Click to expand...

Ruger's been doing that since the 1950s, with the Blackhawk (steel cylinder frame, aluminum grip frame, and it does save a good deal of weight).

A Colt 1851 Navy had a steel cylinder frame and a brass grip frame: same concept, though I'm not sure if it saved any weight. Brass is easier to fabricate than steel, though, much like polymer.

S&W has a lot of ultralight revolvers, some of them too light for what they chamber.

Are you talking about a hybrid polymer/steel structure for .357? That could be intriguing, though the balance might be way off.
 
I didn't say, or mean to imply, that design factors in the LCR don't affect felt recoil. What I am saying is that the relatively small amount of polymer in the platform doesn't have much to do with it. What does is the excellent design of the stocks, but the stocks could be duplicated on other models offered by Smith & Wesson & Taurus.

In polymer-framed pistols the entire lower parts of the platform, including the entire frame, are made from some sort of plastic material, and this is an entirely different matter.

It is not my intent to slam Ruger's new offering, but rather to place it in a context that includes they're competitors, and how these competitors may react relative to their own products to retain market share.

At the present time the small-frame snubby market is largely divided between S&W and Taurus. It remains to be seen how much of this very profitable market Ruger can take, but it is a sure thing that it will come at Smith & Wesson and Taurus’ expense. Neither company is likely to sit back and do nothing. What they do (or don’t as the case may be) should be of interest to everybody.
 
S&W has a lot of ultralight revolvers, some of them too light for what they chamber.
Click to expand...

You can say that again.

I have 642 and I'm fine with it. Should I choose get an additional pocket revolver I would at least consider the LCR, but the lighter weight would not be a reason for selecting one.

The design philosophy has more in common with the Colt 1851 Navy than it does with the GP100.
Click to expand...

Interesting point. I had never thought of it from that point of view (separate grip frame.)
 
I agree with Kleanbore... but if the LCR's recoil-reducing features actually work, I'd be more than up for one to replace my 642.
 
One came into the local shop yesterday, and I got to handle it. IMHO the trigger DOES deliver on promises, and it was smooth and clean-breaking.

Fit and finish was decent, and at an appropriate level for the purpose-designed tool that it is.

Unknown as to recoil promises...didn't get to shoot it.

Also, I would like to more closely investigate the locking mechanism. I won't carry an ILS Smith because of the lock, and would like to see if the Ruger system inspires a bit more confidence.
 
My stock 642 trigger is very good. If the LCR is really a lot better, I'll be impressed.

Two good things going on:

1. Competition in the CCW revolver market.
2. Manufacturers are finally paying attention to trigger quality, even touting it, again.
 
if and when i get caught up on bills im gonna get one even if it just becomes a novelty but by the time i get bills situated itll be in its 4th or 5th generation lol
 
I got one yesterday at Ludco's in Parker City, IN. The fit and finish are actually better than what I was expecting.

I already have a 642 and a 442 and while the trigger pull on the LCR is comparable to that of the 642 (which has had work done on it), the trigger pull of the LCR is considerably lighter than my 442 which is stock. The trigger pull is different--the first stage the cylinder is turned and locked, and the second stage the internal hammer is dropped. I don't have a lot of experience with Colt revolvers, but a friend of mine who does says this trigger reminds him of his old Colt Cobra.

The sights are decent enough if the background is light, but they disappear on darker targets. The cure may be a replacement for the front sight (which is pinned) or simply biting the bullet and buying the Crimson Trace laser grips. With those two modifications I could see the LCR replacing my old 642.
 
This is an interesting read...

http://www.gunblast.com/Ruger-LCR2.htm

Some numbers gleaned from the test:
13oz.
2" at 25 yards with buffalo bore 125 GDHP.
7lb, 10oz trigger pull (that supposedly feels like 5 with the wide trigger).
Buffalo Bore 158gr LSWCHP +P measured at 985 fps from the tester.

"There were no failures to fire, and with every ammo type tested, extraction of the fired cases was easy and ejection was quick."

I'm not seeing much to dislike out of the GB review, personally.
 
I'd really don't want to reconsider my "ONLY S&W DA revolvers" dogma. I really, really don't. But I might....
 
just a notice, there's a short mini-review of the LCR over at bladeforums
http://www.bladeforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=6711399&postcount=44

for people who can't access it:
Well, I happened to find an LCR at Ludco's Gun Shop in Parker City, IN yesterday and it followed me home. The fit and finish were much better than I expected and it just felt "right."

The trigger is different than my J-frame S&W's. It is just as light as my 642--the one with the most extensive trigger work--and much better than the others that have stock triggers. The LCR stages differently than the S&W's. I'm told that it feels more like the trigger on a Colt Cobra, but since I've never shot more than a few rounds through a Cobra it's hard for me to say. The first stage positions the cylinder and locks it in place and the second stage drops the internal hammer. Different from what I'm used to, but nice.

The sights are large but difficult to see against a dark background. In the future I may replace the pinned front sight sight with a high visibility dot sight when they become available. I'll also likely invest in the Crimson Trace laser grips when they become available separately.

Some articles have stated that the LCR will fit in holsters made for the the S&W J-frames, but that is only partly true. I have lots of snubby revolver holsters made for J-frames, and the LCR will fit in about 1/3 of them. The trigger guard is shaped differently and prevents fitting in the form-fit holsters.

Shooting the LCR surprised me. It surprised me a lot. I can normally shoot roughly 6 inch groups with my 642 at 7 yards...not great, but sufficient for my purposes. With the LCR my groups shrunk to about 3 inches with a variety of loads at the same distance. I don't know what to attribute this to, but I don't really care why it's happening, I'm just pleased that it is.

Once I can get the big dot front sight and the CT grips, the 642 will move to my safe and the LCR will be in my pocket.
Click to expand...
 
I think general consensus on the triggers seems to be at least as good as a stock J-frame, with many people comparing them to J-frames that have had trigger jobs.
 
Some articles have stated that the LCR will fit in holsters made for the the S&W J-frames, but that is only partly true. I have lots of snubby revolver holsters made for J-frames, and the LCR will fit in about 1/3 of them. The trigger guard is shaped differently and prevents fitting in the form-fit holsters.


do you know if it will fit in the blackhawk ( serpa series) i believe.. the molded versions with the lock ?
 
I don't have a blackhawk serpa so I can't say for certain, but I doubt it would fit due to the different size and shape of the trigger guard on the LCR.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

M
  • Locked
Ruger LCR
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
MCMXI
MCMXI
N
  • Locked
Ruger LCR in depth Review
2 3 4
Replies
80
Views
41K
Magnumite
M
sean m
  • Locked
Ruger LCR splinter grip
Replies
8
Views
742
Jeb Stuart
Jeb Stuart
N
  • Locked
Purchased a Ruger LCR tonight!
2 3
Replies
52
Views
5K
antiquus
A
jimbo555
  • Locked
Ruger lcr vs.Vintage j-frame
2
Replies
27
Views
2K
jimniowa
J
Back
Top