what is the point
- Thread starter PT1911
- Start date
- Status
Nugilum
Member
It is a solution to a problem that doesn't exist. 
exactly.. nobody ever asked the question that this seems to answer. .
I would understand if it gave some sort of advantage over others already on the market.. but that isnt the case... it is simply something different for the sake of being different...
I would understand if it gave some sort of advantage over others already on the market.. but that isnt the case... it is simply something different for the sake of being different...
idk?
"Polymer grips (and trigger housing), monolithic frame, constant force trigger" (idk what that is). Weight is under 14oz. The price?
maybe they just wanted a airweight style revolver since I believe their lightest was the SP101 @ 25.5oz and it's almost 1.5 lbs lighter than the GP-100?
"Polymer grips (and trigger housing), monolithic frame, constant force trigger" (idk what that is). Weight is under 14oz. The price?
maybe they just wanted a airweight style revolver since I believe their lightest was the SP101 @ 25.5oz and it's almost 1.5 lbs lighter than the GP-100?
I understand that the polymer has a recoil reduction effect on the small revolver. Whatever the reason for it, those who have shot it certainly seem to feel that it is good gun. Certainly the materials would make for a very long lasting and rugged carry or car gun. That said, I still gravitate toward the J-Frame.
Virginian
Member
It is a new gun, and some people who don't have one will buy it. They are in business to sell guns. Same deal with the 327 Magnum.
yeti
Member
Why does there need to be a 'point'?
Perhaps just adding one more option is point enough?
Perhaps just adding one more option is point enough?
MCgunner
Member
The trigger is reportedly much better out of the box. That right there is a "point".
That's laughable. If they can't do better, they shouldn't have built the thing.
We'll have to wait and see what the price is, when the "gotta be the first one on my block" crowd is done getting theirs.
(Not that I want anything different from the J-frame, personally.)
We'll have to wait and see what the price is, when the "gotta be the first one on my block" crowd is done getting theirs.
(Not that I want anything different from the J-frame, personally.)
JohnBT
Member
Nowhere I've seen. They were more than that 5 or 10 years ago when I bought a used 442-1.
sidheshooter
Member
If we are comparing apples to apples (new):
Hawk
Member
Bud's is showing the 442 at 432.00 (and sold out). Cheapest I've seen is that pink monstrosity at 399.00.
Ruger had no lightweight revolver - the SP-101 is 25 ounces.
The LCR actually "splits the difference" weight-wise between the x42 and the 340.
In the battle of MSRPs:
642: 600.00
340: 1,051.00
LCR: 525.00
I suspect that, once the feeding frenzy dies down, pricing will not be a problem for Ruger.
Ruger had no lightweight revolver - the SP-101 is 25 ounces.
The LCR actually "splits the difference" weight-wise between the x42 and the 340.
In the battle of MSRPs:
642: 600.00
340: 1,051.00
LCR: 525.00
I suspect that, once the feeding frenzy dies down, pricing will not be a problem for Ruger.
Hawk
Member
For the weight obsessed, I can see the thing benefitting from S&W's 340 pricing.
642 -- 15 ounces -- 600.00
LCR -- 13.5 ounces -- 525.00
340 -- 12 ounces -- 1,051.00
It almost looks like they saw a hole and dove for it.
Next year or so should prove interesting - it's my understanding S&W has been spanking them pretty good in that "lightweight pocket" niche.
642 -- 15 ounces -- 600.00
LCR -- 13.5 ounces -- 525.00
340 -- 12 ounces -- 1,051.00
It almost looks like they saw a hole and dove for it.
Next year or so should prove interesting - it's my understanding S&W has been spanking them pretty good in that "lightweight pocket" niche.
MCgunner
Member
To me, anything under 20 ounces is a good weight for a pocket revolver. I'm not sure why a 2 ounce .357 appeals to people. My Taurus M85SSUL is 17 ounces and easy to tote all day.
Still, I wanna see this LCR and handle it. I am quite sure I won't buy one, don't need it, want other stuff, but I am interested in checkin' the thing out and if I didn't already have a gun in that niche, I'd perhaps be interested in buying.
I'm not sure very many are going to trash their 642s for the LCR. It could sell to new buyers, though, looking for a carry snub.
Wow, 10 years ago, I coulda bought a new 642 for $305. I guess I missed yet another opportunity. I'm just glad to see Ruger acknowledging the carry market. When uncle Bill was alive, I don't think he thought citizens needed to be carrying pocket guns. It's becoming a better company, IMHO, since he's gone.
My Taurus M85SSUL is 17 ounces and easy to tote all day. Still, I wanna see this LCR and handle it. I am quite sure I won't buy one, don't need it, want other stuff, but I am interested in checkin' the thing out and if I didn't already have a gun in that niche, I'd perhaps be interested in buying.
I'm not sure very many are going to trash their 642s for the LCR. It could sell to new buyers, though, looking for a carry snub.
Wow, 10 years ago, I coulda bought a new 642 for $305. I guess I missed yet another opportunity.
I'm just glad to see Ruger acknowledging the carry market. When uncle Bill was alive, I don't think he thought citizens needed to be carrying pocket guns. It's becoming a better company, IMHO, since he's gone.Madcap_Magician
Member
I think the big selling points were the trigger, the higher grips, and the odd factor of polymer. I am disappointed that it's not at the sub-$400 level.
1.5 oz.? Not noticeable, especially once loaded. The weight of a some pocket change.
The 340? The LCR isn't a .357, any more than the 642 is. Apples and oranges.
The LCR would have to compete with the 642/442 by being a better revolver, easier to shoot well, cheaper, or all three. It does not compete with a .357.
The 340? The LCR isn't a .357, any more than the 642 is. Apples and oranges.
The LCR would have to compete with the 642/442 by being a better revolver, easier to shoot well, cheaper, or all three. It does not compete with a .357.
MCgunner
Member
Hey, if I had a 340, trust me, it'd be a .38.
I rented a 340 when trying to decide. I bought a 642.
No sense spending a few hundred extra bucks for something I wouldn't use.
That isn't to say that there's no purpose for the 340. Ruger is not pursuing that market with the LCR anyway, though.
No sense spending a few hundred extra bucks for something I wouldn't use.
That isn't to say that there's no purpose for the 340. Ruger is not pursuing that market with the LCR anyway, though.
- Status
