S&W 442 Vs Ruger LCR

[Hook686]

Has anyone shot both of these ? The Ruger LCR is currently not legal in California. The 442 is. My gunsmith said the new test results are before the Department of Justice currently and approval might be a week, or two away. He has a 442 on hand. I am wondering if the wait is worth while.

 

[mdwiese]

Personal taste is what it comes down too. I handled both recently, and went with the 442. The Ruger seems kinda bulky to me, and also the 442 was used and at what I considered to be a good price.

 

[Bat Guano]

Have only handled the LCR, but have carried a 442 for 10-12 yrs now. I was not tempted to change.

Besides Charlies Angels occasionally featured a S&W Centennial because its lines went with their lines.

 

[Sportsterguy]

I'll take the 442 (even with the lock which can be easily cured) any day over the Ruger and yes I've shot both.

The Smith is built finer and the trigger is better. I really did not like the cylinder release latch on the Ruger, plus I'm biased towards plastic weapons.

I'm also a S&W lover which also adds to my recommendation, but I truly think you will like a proven revolver (442) over a new model weapon in case of any recalls as was the case with their LCP.

Personally I'd buy a pre lock model 36 and call it a day. Better revolver than both and the added weight helps in the recoil dept. I don't / won't / can't pocket carry so a shrouded hammer is no big deal. My old nickel 36 is still going strong and goes BANG evrytime I've ever pulled the trigger.

JMO

 

[ranger7]

Has anyone shot both of these ? The Ruger LCR is currently not legal in California. The 442 is. My gunsmith said the new test results are before the Department of Justice currently and approval might be a week, or two away. He has a 442 on hand. I am wondering if the wait is worth while.

I own both and have recently shot them. I've been a J frame fan for several years and have owned at least 6 of them. A 442 with CT laser grip was my favorite up until about a month ago. My dealer had an LCR sitting in the case for a week or two. I finally yielded to the temptation and bought it. I liked it alot. The grip was a little large but felt real good in the hand.

My wife has weak hands and always had problems with double action revolver trigger pulls. I let her try the LCR and she had no problems with the trigger pull at all. I measured the trigger pulls on the LCR and 442. The LCR avaraged 9.25# and the 442 11.75#. The LCR trigger is very smooth with no stacking. The LCR is lighter than the 442 but the LCR grip and the polymer frame soak up the recoil very well. Since I'm losing the LCR to my wife, I put a couple of the J frames up for consignment sale and bought my dealer's second LCR for myself. Next my daughter tried the LCR and now I have a 3rd LCR on backorder.

My only real complaint about my LCRs is that the selection of holsters isn't great so far. I modified one of my Don Hume IWB J-frame holsters by tearing out a few stitches and having a shoe repair guy put them back, in a better place.

I plan to keep the 442, but the LCR will probably replace it for most of my carry situations. Good luck on your decision. You may have to wait a while longer for the LCR, even after they get approved, as they're pretty popular and Ruger doesn't seem to be keeping up with demand.

 

[aterry33]

The LCR is a neat idea, and time may show that it is a nice addition to the concealed carry market (I tend to prefer pocket revolvers to pocket autos)... But the 442/642 are so well-known and respected that I would go with them unless the LCR feels much better in your hand, or something like that. You cannot go wrong with a 442.

I like the 36, but would not get anything with an exposed hammer if you are going to pocket carry.

 

[Landric]

Pretty and proven vs. Ugly and unproven, seems like a no-brainer right now. If the LCR proves its self over time, then it might be worth a look. I'm of the opinion that its a bad idea to buy guns the first year or two they are on the market, and Ruger has had an especially bad record over the last couple of years with new introductions having problems that required recall.

 

[jack the toad]

Handled but haven't shot the LCR. Based on that, I'd go with the Smith.

 

[Roca]

I have a model 642 (same as a 442, just different finish) and a 37. I have about 5500 rounds throught the 642, and a few hundred through the 37. I rented an LCR at the range the other day and put a box of 50 standard pressure rounds through it.

LCR accuracy was outstanding, every bit the equal of my 642. The trigger was maybe slightly smoother than the 642, but had a bit longer range of required travel. The LCR also felt a bit lighter than the 642, but not much. Overall I thought the LCR was an excellent first effort at a real carry gun from Ruger.

However, two things I did not like about the LCR. The crane felt very loose and flimsy and the ejector rod was very short. Not sure but my impression was the ejector rod is actually shorter than a j-frame, but I didn't have any way to accurately measure it. With the ejector rod being short, you will probably need to slap it a real world (not in practice of course) self defense reload situation to get any chance of the empties clearing out all the way. I would be concerned the crane would not endure the slap. Maybe the one I shot was just dirty being a range gun, but it did not like to let go of the empties.

The other thing I didn't like was the size of the standard grip. It was great for absorbing recoil, but was way too big for me to be able to conceal it. YMMV. It also was very grippy and might like to stick to clothing. Maybe the CT grips are better.

Overall, I passed on buying one over the concerns I had with the grip and ejector rod/crane. Still it worked far better than i expected it to, and will no doubt serve its intended purpose well. Its just not for me. I'm sticking to the 642.

 

[snakeman32]

I have handled the LCR but not had a chance to shoot one. So far I don't like it. It seems like it is cheaply made. It just doesn't feel right to me. That is just my opinion tho. I will give it another chance when I get to shoot one. Even if I change my mind about liking it I would wait a while to buy one. Like everyone else has said, Ruger doesn't have a good track record lately with new guns.


snakeman

 

[Papa]

Have just seen pictures of the lcr. I would get the smith. Just my 02 cents worth.

 

[XTrooper]

Having carried a full-size service weapon on my side for most of my adult life, I think the relevant question is this:

Just how light does your snub-nosed revolver need to be?

My Model 442 Featherweight feels like it's carved from balsa wood compared to my other handguns and, with +P loads, it can be a handful to shoot. Does anyone think a 442 too heavy for them to carry all day? I just don't see the need nor the point in owning anything lighter except to win a "mine is lighter than yours" contest.

 

[ranger7]

Having carried a full-size service weapon on my side for most of my adult life, I think the relevant question is this:

Just how light does your snub-nosed revolver need to be?

My Model 442 Featherweight feels like it's carved from balsa wood compared to my other handguns and, with +P loads, it can be a handful to shoot. Does anyone think a 442 too heavy for them to carry all day? I just don't see the need nor the point in owning anything lighter except to win a "mine is lighter than yours" contest.

XTrooper,
If your post relates, at least in part, to a comparison between the 642/442 and the LCR, then thought should be given to the fact that there are other reasons, besides weight, to consider the LCR as possibly having advantages over the 642/442.

The LCR's unique trigger mechanism enables a much lower trigger pull weight than the more traditional mechanism in the 642/442 without modification or sacrificing reliabilty.

At least some shooters may find the factory grips on the LCR ergonomically superior to the factory grips on the 642/442. Although a little bigger, they just feel better, at least to me.

The materials that makeup the frame and grip of the LCR are better at absorbing or minimizing felt recoil than the frame and (factory) grips of the 642/442.

The finish of the LCR is expected to be much more durable and longer lasting than those of the 642/442. Some may say that esthetics aren't important but if I pay $400+ for a handgun, I'd prefer it to stay looking decent with reasonable care. (I sent my first 642 back to S&W twice for replacement of the clearcoat before I gave up and sold it. The finish on my older 642s and a 442 seem to be holding up much better than the newer ones but they still seem to be fairly subject to showing "holster or pocket" wear.)

http://tinyurl.com/lkyohq

Note: Sorry if this sounds like a sales pitch for the LCR, but I'm "sold" on them. I find it a little annoying to see them criticized by some people who have neither shot nor even handled one.

 

[XTrooper]

Well, I was thinking of the weight factor only which is what my entire post addressed, but I am appreciative of your post.

Though grips are a non-issue since they can be changed in under five minutes and there are scores of options, a lighter trigger pull would be a real benefit. Durable finishes are nice too.

Regarding "energy-absorbing" and "felt recoil reducing" firearms materials and designs, it has been my experience that they are largely marketing BS. The only guaranteed solution to reducing felt recoil by any meaningful amount is via increased weight. For example, the felt recoil experienced when shooting full power 10mm loads from my big, heavy, all-steel Smith & Wesson Model 1026 is significantly less than that experienced when shooting the same ammo from the lighter Glock 20 with its "recoil-absorbing" polymer frame. I could give other examples, but I think you understand what I'm saying.

 

[ranger7]

Well, I was thinking of the weight factor only which is what my entire post addressed, but I am appreciative of your post.

Though grips are a non-issue since they can be changed in under five minutes and there are scores of options, a lighter trigger pull would be a real benefit. Durable finishes are nice too.

Regarding "energy-absorbing" and "felt recoil reducing" firearms materials and designs, it has been my experience that they are largely marketing BS. The only guaranteed solution to reducing felt recoil by any meaningful amount is via increased weight. For example, the felt recoil experienced when shooting full power 10mm loads from my big, heavy, all-steel Smith & Wesson Model 1026 is significantly less than that experienced when shooting the same ammo from the lighter Glock 20 with its "recoil-absorbing" polymer frame. I could give other examples, but I think you understand what I'm saying.

Our differences seem to be on minor points. I certainly agree that grips can be changed easily, especially if you don't mind spending $75 to several hundred dollars. I found it refreshing to find some of the things I valued for carry in an out-of-the-box stock gun.

The trigger pull can be a "make or break" issue for some people. What made me especially notice this in the LCR, is that my wife has weak hands and finds almost any reliable double action revolver trigger pull too much for her. She has no problem at all with the LCR.

I agree that more weight is an effective way to reduce felt recoil but if you're trying to achive the lightest handgun for an application like pocket carry, it's nice to have every advantage in reducing recoil. Instead of trading increased weight for recoil reduction, the LCR gives you a little less weight and less recoil, compared to its competition. A few less ounces for pocket carry can give you a wider choice of pants material or increased pocket holster options or allow a few more rounds of spare ammo. I agree that trimming weight too much can increase pain, flinching or inaccurate follow up shots.

Trading a semi-auto for a revolver can also reduce recoil as the semi-auto action helps soak it up. I've made the mistake of expecting a revolver to have the equally low recoil as a semi-auto in the same caliber but we're both comparing "apples to apples" here.

 

[HAWKEYE10]

Something for thought. Why would you pay as much or a
higher price for the LCR? This hot gun will go down when
the new wears off. Just look at the LCP,on GB there were
some for $289. S&W in my opinion a better gun and the
resale is higher. By the way I am a Ruger fan. They make
good guns. Don

 

[Vulcan Bob]

I have only handeled the Ruger at a shop and never shot one yet. But I dont think I am ready for a polymer frame wheelgun just yet.

 

[PeterCartwright]

It's good to hear some real life evaluations (instead of gun mag article/advertisements). I'm not crazy about the looks of the critter, but, to my mind, function outweighs form in a self-defense gun. If the lighter trigger enables some to have a viable shooter, or enables folks to shoot more accurately, I'm gonna celebrate.

I'm a big Ruger fan-especially in terms of its more conventional wheel guns-but I'm not trading my 642 for an LCR at this point.

PC

 

[JcMack]

I carry a one of the 2 Colt Cobras I own in holster or a 442 or a 60 in my pocket. The LCR would be at best a lateral move. Can you readily get different style grips for the LCR? I thought the grip frame design was similar to the SP101.

 

[AKAOV1MAN]

For a .38 Special lightweight I don't think one can do much better than the 442. I am thoroughly addicted to my 9mm wheelguns so I prefer the 940, but it is a little too heavy for trouser pocket carry. My guideline is 16 oz or under, its a pocket gun, over that its a belt gun, or vest gun or something other than a pocket. I usually carry the 442 in a belt holster or my old Berns Martin shoulder(or belt) rig. It also goes real nicely in a winter coat pocket or BDU cargo pocket(with a pocket holster of course).
I have shot the Ruger, and like all Rugers it is built like a tank, would probably be Ok for said tank to run over it, but there is not the "soul" of an all metal gun with decent wood on it.
Just me maybe, but Smiths, Colts and some others have a spirit, which is lacking in the utility of the Ruger.