Carrying my Ruger LCR.38

[NYlakesider]

Carrying my LCR.38

Have a bunch of guns that qualify as carry. For going into serious places like cities or unknown areas my go to now is a XDs. 45. Small reasonably light but powerful and sort of easy to conceal.

For just general go around in "safe areas" I have been carrying a Ruger LCR .38+P. Up to know I only pocket carry in a Uncle Mikes size 4 holster. Gun just disappears in my pocket but it's not going to win a quick draw contest but it can come out fairly quick if needed. It's a nasty little kicker with hot ammo but you do what you got to do as the odds it will never be shot in anger anyway. I have no problem with the trigger pull and at this time have not considered doing some work on it!

I did make a major improvement and it made the kick better and improved the accuracy. I put a ½ inch longer grip on it (Hogue Monogrip) and it's like a different gun. Funny thing concealment wise it hides as good or even better in my pocket than the smaller grip did. (I tried it in 5 different pants)

A win-win situation. I do not know how it will work if carried other places but as said above I have other guns if needed with more power and more rounds available, so for now will only be pocket carried!

 

[dr. mordo]

I love my LCR327 and lately it has replaced my J frames as my daily pocket gun. I'm waiting on a couple of packages in the mail and then I plan to work up some superhot SD ammo.

I plan to get the LCR357 and possibly the .38 as well.

That said, the .38 is pretty dang light. I bet it packs a wallop when shooting hot +p rounds.

 

[TomkinsSP]

A friend EDCs the .357. She chose it over the .38 because the SS frame is 4 or so ounces heavier, not because she carries anything hotter than 158 grain .38+p PDX-1s.

 

[petepeterson]

Carrying my LCR.38

For going into serious places like cities or unknown areas my go to now is a XDs. 45. Small reasonably light but powerful and sort of easy to conceal.

Just out of curiosity- Do you feel that much better armed with the XDs?

 

[NYlakesider]

Just out of curiosity- Do you feel that much better armed with the XDs?

Yes! With the short barrel, bullet even if it does not expand is still large size. Reloading is faster and I use the longer magazine as backup. Like I said only carried when the situation or area dictates!

 

[grover99]

One of my main carry is an LCR in 327 Fed. I also replaced the grips with a Hogue and have no problem with pocket carry. I like the idea of having 6 rounds rather than 5 with a J frame or the LCR in 38/357.

 

[gsn]

nylakesider, with regard to the number of rounds stuffed into those double stacked?- rapid fire-spring loaded mags for your master blaster read what the foremost authority on civilian self defense in the US has to say about ammo capacity:

'Carrying enough ammo is absolutely defensible. The bad news is that you'll have to prove it to a jury that has been exposed to a lifetime of anti-gun media brainwashing to the contrary'

Masood Ayoob-Personal Defense World-16Jan15

Why you may wish to -only- carry/use a revolver is contained in a study of civilian self defense actions written in the -Journal of Applied Psychology- in the article 'Juries, Gender and Assault Weapons'.

While I am not certain as to whether or not the study was penned to only include home defense I am reasonably certain that that the conclusion positively applies to armed civilian self defense encounters outside the domicile.

'Homeowners who used "evil looking" guns were more often convicted and given higher sentences than those who used "traditional-looking" guns. Specifically, an AR-15 user was more likely to be convicted (and also given a longer sentence) than a Ruger 14 user. The user of a pump-action shotgun (Winchester 1300) was more often convicted and given a longer sentence than someone who used a double barrell Winchester. ~And users of semi automatic pistols (G19) were more often convicted and given longer sentences than revolver (S&W 642) users~ This was added (note given the two-round fired scenario both weapons in each pair are functionally identical the only difference is cosmetic)

I enthusiastically support anyone in carrying, legally, the platform of their choice its just that when one knows the difference between civilian self defense facts and what our 'protectors' (law enforcement/military) needs are it should become that the best choice for civilians is the revolver.

And yes I do subscribe to roughly the 2-2-2 scenario for civilian self defense encounters involving handguns.

 

[NYlakesider]

nylakesider, with regard to the number of rounds stuffed into those double stacked?- rapid fire-spring loaded mags for your master blaster read what the foremost authority on civilian self defense in the US has to say about ammo capacity:

'Carrying enough ammo is absolutely defensible. The bad news is that you'll have to prove it to a jury that has been exposed to a lifetime of anti-gun media brainwashing to the contrary'

Masood Ayoob-Personal Defense World-16Jan15

Why you may wish to -only- carry/use a revolver is contained in a study of civilian self defense actions written in the -Journal of Applied Psychology- in the article 'Juries, Gender and Assault Weapons'.

While I am not certain as to whether or not the study was penned to only include home defense I am reasonably certain that that the conclusion positively applies to armed civilian self defense encounters outside the domicile.

'Homeowners who used "evil looking" guns were more often convicted and given higher sentences than those who used "traditional-looking" guns. Specifically, an AR-15 user was more likely to be convicted (and also given a longer sentence) than a Ruger 14 user. The user of a pump-action shotgun (Winchester 1300) was more often convicted and given a longer sentence than someone who used a double barrell Winchester. ~And users of semi automatic pistols (G19) were more often convicted and given longer sentences than revolver (S&W 642) users~ This was added (note given the two-round fired scenario both weapons in each pair are functionally identical the only difference is cosmetic)

I enthusiastically support anyone in carrying, legally, the platform of their choice its just that when one knows the difference between civilian self defense facts and what our 'protectors' (law enforcement/military) needs are it should become that the best choice for civilians is the revolver.

And yes I do subscribe to roughly the 2-2-2 scenario for civilian self defense encounters involving handguns.

My XDs.45 holds under ten rounds and is a 100% legal under NYS draconian "Safe Act" Like said most times the LCR is carried as I'm retired and there is not many reasons for me to go to the cities anymore.

The only handgun I now own that was built to carry more than 10 rounds is my 6906 (12 shot) and I have a few S&W modified mags that will not hold more than 10 rounds. (Legal) Its been retired from carry duties, and now lives in my safe.

I got my carry permit in early 70s and have read pretty much most anything written by Ayoob and Jeff Cooper over the years!

 

[Dobie406]

nylakesider, with regard to the number of rounds stuffed into those double stacked?- rapid fire-spring loaded mags for your master blaster read what the foremost authority on civilian self defense in the US has to say about ammo capacity:

'Carrying enough ammo is absolutely defensible. The bad news is that you'll have to prove it to a jury that has been exposed to a lifetime of anti-gun media brainwashing to the contrary'

Masood Ayoob-Personal Defense World-16Jan15

Why you may wish to -only- carry/use a revolver is contained in a study of civilian self defense actions written in the -Journal of Applied Psychology- in the article 'Juries, Gender and Assault Weapons'.

While I am not certain as to whether or not the study was penned to only include home defense I am reasonably certain that that the conclusion positively applies to armed civilian self defense encounters outside the domicile.

'Homeowners who used "evil looking" guns were more often convicted and given higher sentences than those who used "traditional-looking" guns. Specifically, an AR-15 user was more likely to be convicted (and also given a longer sentence) than a Ruger 14 user. The user of a pump-action shotgun (Winchester 1300) was more often convicted and given a longer sentence than someone who used a double barrell Winchester. ~And users of semi automatic pistols (G19) were more often convicted and given longer sentences than revolver (S&W 642) users~ This was added (note given the two-round fired scenario both weapons in each pair are functionally identical the only difference is cosmetic)

I enthusiastically support anyone in carrying, legally, the platform of their choice its just that when one knows the difference between civilian self defense facts and what our 'protectors' (law enforcement/military) needs are it should become that the best choice for civilians is the revolver.

And yes I do subscribe to roughly the 2-2-2 scenario for civilian self defense encounters involving handguns.

Convicted? That's assuming I am using my scary looking guns to commit a crime, not for legal self-defense

 

[Protected One]

nylakesider, with regard to the number of rounds stuffed into those double stacked?- rapid fire-spring loaded mags for your master blaster read what the foremost authority on civilian self defense in the US has to say about ammo capacity:

Carrying enough ammo is absolutely defensible. The bad news is that you'll have to prove it to a jury that has been exposed to a lifetime of anti-gun media brainwashing to the contrary'

Masood Ayoob-Personal Defense World-16Jan15

Why you may wish to -only- carry/use a revolver is contained in a study of civilian self defense actions written in the -Journal of Applied Psychology- in the article 'Juries, Gender and Assault Weapons'.

While I am not certain as to whether or not the study was penned to only include home defense I am reasonably certain that that the conclusion positively applies to armed civilian self defense encounters outside the domicile.

Given my choice of "bad news" between
A) Having to defend carrying the number of rounds I do, or
B) Facing a larger number of threats than I have ammo for.

>>>I'll choose (A) every time!

 

[gsn]

What the info I posted indicates that -what- you carry makes a great deal of difference when handguns are LEGALLY used.

If the study is correct the revolver is viewed as being more acceptable by juries than the semi-if Mr. Ayoob is correct more ammo means more jury problems.

The only correct conclusion which can be taken from the above is that all will go much better for you if you carry the revolver rather than the semi auto.

We believe that for civilians the choice of a revolver is a no brainer-you may not and that is fine but I am curious as to why anyone would choose to carry a .45 semi auto?

 

[NYlakesider]

What the info I posted indicates that -what- you carry makes a great deal of difference when handguns are LEGALLY used.

If the study is correct the revolver is viewed as being more acceptable by juries than the semi-if Mr. Ayoob is correct more ammo means more jury problems.

The only correct conclusion which can be taken from the above is that all will go much better for you if you carry the revolver rather than the semi auto.

We believe that for civilians the choice of a revolver is a no brainer-you may not and that is fine but I am curious as to why anyone would choose to carry a .45 semi auto?

Ayoob carried a .45 semi auto many times. Why do you not ask him! No I'm not referring to gun carried as a sworn police officer!

 

[Iggy]

I'm like the old saying goes. I'd rather have 12 people judging me for what I carried, than 6 people carrying me because I ran out of ammo.

 

[Ivan the Butcher]

I'm not convinced everything Mr. Ayoob says, is correct or at least applies to someone who lives elsewhere. He is perhaps one of the most quoted pro gun experts, but he's not the only expert. And anytime you get two or more experts (on any subject) in the same room, there will be disagreement!

Ivan

 

[Mtnfolk325]

I also EDC an LCR, mine is a 9mm and is carried in a Mika Pocket Holster. I also EDC 2 Speed Strips loaded with 5 round each. Lately when Slummin' in the City I add a 2nd LCR 9mm in a Sourdough Pancake on the Belt and carry a Moonclip in my Weakside Pocket.

 

[grover99]

I think after today's news I am going to stop carrying my LCR in church and go to my double stack 9mm

 

[dubshooter]

I carry a revolver. But one thing has me wondering. Why would a jury matter if I used my gun legally? Jury only sees a case when there is probable cause and charges filed by the county attorney. If I'm legally justified in lethal force, it doesn't matter if I run the person over with a car, use a baseball bat, a revolver or semi auto.

 

[elm_creek_smith]

What the info I posted indicates that -what- you carry makes a great deal of difference when handguns are LEGALLY used.



If the study is correct the revolver is viewed as being more acceptable by juries than the semi-if Mr. Ayoob is correct more ammo means more jury problems.



The only correct conclusion which can be taken from the above is that all will go much better for you if you carry the revolver rather than the semi auto.



We believe that for civilians the choice of a revolver is a no brainer-you may not and that is fine but I am curious as to why anyone would choose to carry a .45 semi auto?

I carry revolvers on duty (Yes, I'm a dinosaur.) and off duty. My choice was deliberate because my wife doesn't like "guns that shoot back," as she calls semiautos. That said, I would carry an M1911A1 in a heartbeat because I carried one for 16 years in the Army before the procurement system betrayed us with the M9 Beretta.

The officers that work for me carry Glock 22 .40 caliber pistols. They stopped asking me why I carry a revolver after they realized that they couldn't outshoot me.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[codenamedave]

Convicted? That's assuming I am using my scary looking guns to commit a crime, not for legal self-defense

It only becomes "legal self-defense" after you're found innocent.

I found the Ayoob article that gsn referenced:

Right here

He forgot to mention this part:

I don't carry a gun without spare ammunition: normally two spare magazines for a single-stack semi-auto, more than that if I'm wearing a revolver as my primary and at least one spare magazine if I'm wearing a double-stack autoloader. If 35 years as an expert witness in shooting cases hadn't convinced me it was defensible, I wouldn't carry it.


The only reference I found that might correspond to his reference of "-Journal of Applied Psychology- in the article 'Juries, Gender and Assault Weapons'. " was an article in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology titled Juries, Gender, and Assault Weapons. If that is the article referred to, he failed to mention that it was based on MOCK juries in a artificial environment.

Abstract

Firearms appearance can have psychological import in legal proceedings by keying aggressive ideations, impacting sentencing and gender-based attributions. We presented mock jurors with a homeowner's defensive gun use. Reasonable arguments were for shooting or not in the scenario by the defendant. The firearm varied in type. Assault rifle use led to harsher legal outcomes than did other firearms. A female defendant was at more risk than a male. In the last experiment, a police shooting scenario was tested. In that case, the male officer was at more risk than the female officer when wielding the assault rifle. Weapons and gender interactions were, for the most part, congruent with social cognitive theories of attribution and weapons priming of aggressive ideation.


In other words, same ol' same. Use something legal and be prepared to defend it, alongside your actions, in court.

 

[codenamedave]

We believe that for civilians the choice of a revolver is a no brainer-you may not and that is fine but I am curious as to why anyone would choose to carry a .45 semi auto?

And who the **** is "we"?


Perhaps gsn is not intimately familiar with the language, as seems to be evidenced by some other quirks of usage. Not trying to be insulting, maybe English isn't his first language, in which case I'm sure he's better at English than I am at his native tongue.