Ruger LCRx 3" in .44 spl.??? When?

[righteoushoot]

Hey all! I just saw a review of the new 3" LCRx in .38 spl. and I thought why the heck don't they make one in .44 spl.??? Now THAT would be kül! I suppose Ruger would have to make a slightly larger frame, right, but I think the new 3" with the longer grip would make a sweet and light little carry.

Can someone get moving on that please....

 

[bannockburn]

Go to Ruger's website, click on "Tell the CEO", and let them know about your idea for a LCRx in .44 Special.

 

[RustyShackelford]

+2......

I stated the same on another Ruger LCR topic.
The .44spl is highly under-rated. It's big & slow but more than capable to defend you in a lethal force incident.

 

[moxie]

Not sure a 5 shot .44 cylinder would fit as is. The frame would have to be opened up about .2". Probably doable.

 

[BSA1]

Charter Arms is and has been doing it for many years. I doubt that the market is large enough to recoup the production costs.

 

[righteoushoot]

Charter Arms is and has been doing it for many years. I doubt that the market is large enough to recoup the production costs.

Every time I have handled the CA thinking I might get it, I just can't pull the trigger. Not that I have ever owned or shot one, but there is something that is stopping me. I really don't want to sit here and knock them, as that was not my intent. Maybe I am spoiled by my 696. I think I would not have the same issues with the Ruger, at least from what the 38's that I have handled tell me.

And yes, I would thing it would have to be modified from the 38 frame, but the polymer part should be easier than steel. After all, I thought one of the bennies of Gun Mfg.'s using polymer is the cost savings.

When the S&W 69 came out, people were clamoring for other versions and shorter barrels, and I hear a lot of people are shooting .44 spl.'s anyway.

Just a thought....

 

[Madcap_Magician]

Probably never, as it would require reworking the entire frame. Although if they ever come out with a six-shot .357/.38 LCR with a 3" barrel, they could do a five-shot .44. Lipseys might order a special run of them. But probably not if we don't get a six-shot .38.

 

[Drail]

If you have a 696 (and I do) then you will never find anything to beat it in .44 cal. That is pretty much the lower size limit on a .44 revolver unless you build it as lightly as Charter does. A Charter is not pleasant for most to shoot and it will never have the service life of a S&W L frame if you plan to shoot it rather than just carry it a lot. The .44 Spl. will not fit into and LCR frame - and even if you sized it up enough so it would you wouldn't enjoy shooting it very much. The other problem (and the main one that killed the 696) is you would have a bunch of really stupid people building handloads that would destroy it and then claiming warranty replacement. I don't blame S&W for dropping it because I have seen a number of 696s that were beat to death by "enthusiastic but dumb" handloaders. The 696 was the most perfect carry revolver S&W has come up with yet.

 

[righteoushoot]

I see your point Drail. If Ruger thinks a bunch of NumbNutz are going to hot load their Polymer .44's and shoot them apart, because they appear more robust than the Charters, they might be reluctant. And, my 696 is the smoothest action S&W I have ever felt. It's like it's on ball bearings soaked in whale oil.

Just Don't want to beat on her too too much. I have 629's for that.

 

[Arizonan]

Rossi 720 with fixed sights is the best 44 Special going for a ccw .

 

[Lucky Derby]

If you have a 696 (and I do) then you will never find anything to beat it in .44 cal. That is pretty much the lower size limit on a .44 revolver unless you build it as lightly as Charter does. A Charter is not pleasant for most to shoot and it will never have the service life of a S&W L frame if you plan to shoot it rather than just carry it a lot. The .44 Spl. will not fit into and LCR frame - and even if you sized it up enough so it would you wouldn't enjoy shooting it very much. The other problem (and the main one that killed the 696) is you would have a bunch of really stupid people building handloads that would destroy it and then claiming warranty replacement. I don't blame S&W for dropping it because I have seen a number of 696s that were beat to death by "enthusiastic but dumb" handloaders. The 696 was the most perfect carry revolver S&W has come up with yet.

I see your point, and I love my 696, but I find that my 4" 624 is just as easy to carry with the tappered barrel. the full lug, IMHO, ruins the potential of the 696.
For what little difference there is I carry my 624 and get an extra round and a longer barrel.
S&W made the 296 & 396. If those had been steel, or at least with a steel cylinder to add some weight those would have been perfect. I did briefly own own a 296 & a couple of older CAs. I keep wanting to get one of the new ones.

 

[Eb1]

Rossi 720 with fixed sights is the best 44 Special going for a ccw .

I agree, and I am having the 3" barrel cut down and adding a dovetail front sight on mine. It has already been bead blasted. Looks good and is not shinny anymore.

 

[mongoslow]

like has been mentioned The Rossi 720 is a great option,mine is the unfluted cylinder, adjustable sight model. I feel the only thing that will beat it right now is a S&W 624 3" Lew Horton model but you are talking $1000+ if you can find one. I will keep carrying my 720 and hoping for a 3" SP 101 in .44 spc. though .

 

[PapaGrune]

Somewhat off topic. Ruger does make a .357 Mag in that model I think. Some folks are wondering about a .327 model. Maybe a 9mm would work. Cheap ammo cost and a lot of people own a gun in 9mm and have a large stock of of ammo. I think any of these would be good except to the Ruger hatters. The gun is a little expensive in the $500 range I think. LCPs are cheaper.

 

[PapaGrune]

I don't know if 41 special would work.

 

[Panzerschwein]

I'd like to see a 4 shot LCRx in .500 S&W Special! I like Rugers tell the CEO, it's always worth a shot to push up new ideas.

 

[RealGun]

I see your point, and I love my 696, but I find that my 4" 624 is just as easy to carry with the tappered barrel. the full lug, IMHO, ruins the potential of the 696.
For what little difference there is I carry my 624 and get an extra round and a longer barrel.
S&W made the 296 & 396. If those had been steel, or at least with a steel cylinder to add some weight those would have been perfect. I did briefly own own a 296 & a couple of older CAs. I keep wanting to get one of the new ones.

Enjoy your 624 and that justifying logic, but clearly the 696 is the superior concealed carry. One is a long barreled N-frame and the other is a short barreled L-frame...no contest. To boot, the 696 has a round butt grip that enables compact combat grips. The extra round is exactly why few carry a large caliber sixgun. Five rounds is what makes the caliber viable for CCW.