Hmm...mm-mmm...
I agree, more variety in size. So I'd go with a no-effort micro, a reasonable small, and a you-dun-goofed model.
And while I think Rugers are all right, I am not a fan of the LCR or the LCP. I can't quite put my finger on why, though. Something about polymer in a revolver just seems wrong, and I just don't know why I don't like the LCP.
So I'd have a micro for zero-effort carry, a midsize that toted 8-10 rounds of 9mm with a full-ish grip (think Glock 26) for everyday, and then a full-size you-have-made-poor-life-choices-sir fighter.
Personal picks?
Any .38 Spl J-frame for the micro. Literally, what's the difference between 'em? Pick the hammer configuration you like.
Midsize, I really do like the 26--10 in 9mm and the same grip as a full-size until you get to the pinky. I shoot it about as well as I do the bigger G-Locks. I do not like the Sig P365--truly heresy on the S&W forum or GlockTalk--as the grip just feels too small. The whole point is to have a chopped big gun, not a shrinky-dink gun. If the 365 feels better to you, go for it.
Life-Choices Full-Size I would define as "whatever you shoot best, fastest, and with as little effort, that you also shoot most often". At this moment, I would probably roll with my S&W 327 M&P R8. It has a lot of nice features (the DA trigger is amazing), but what sets it apart is the balance. The scandium N-frame'd R8 just points, swings, and tracks perfectly. And I can deliver .38 Spl +P and .357 Magnum with it faster and more accurately than target 9mms with a tuned-up Glock 34 or .45s with a 1911.
Yes, despite the cavernous 8-shot capacity, it still holds less than the midsize Glock 26. I'd counter by saying that I don't think capacity is as important as shootability, and that if I felt compelled to carry the Big Gun and was somehow worried that 8 rounds was not enough, I'd probably tote the midsize as a BUG.